EXPLORING THE EXPERIENCES OF DIS/ABLED STEM GRADUATE STUDENTS

by

D. C. BEARDMORE

A thesis submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School of the

University of Colorado Boulder

in partial fulfillment

of the requirement for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering

College of Engineering and Applied Science

2023

Committee Members:

Angela Bielefeldt

Keith Molenaar

JoAnn Silverstein

Robyn Sandekian

Rebecca Ciancanelli
 Page ii

ABSTRACT

Beardmore, D.C. (Ph.D., Civil Engineering Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural

Engineering)

Exploring the Experiences of Dis/abled STEM Graduate Students

Thesis directed by Professors Angela Bielefeldt and Keith Molenaar

It is essential to include all individuals who can contribute to research, education, and

society, especially those from diverse backgrounds and abilities. Yet dis/abled 1 graduate

students have been ignored in institutional policies, departmental practices, instruction,

advising, and research. Responding to this gap in knowledge, I explore the experiences of seven

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) graduate students with less

apparent dis/abilities. The study included two sequential phases of data collection through

virtual interviews and qualitative analysis of the participant responses. I chose to highlight three

topics in my dissertation: alienation, the culture of productivity, and interpersonal

relationships. This dissertation explores the participants’ Stories (spelled with a capital S) and

the impacts of these phenomena on their professional advancement, social relationships, well-

1
I spell dis/ability with a slash to acknowledge the validity and value of humans who have dis/abilities. I use this
spelling to disrupt the deficit perception of dis/ability and the normative ideal of ability. I also use this spelling to
emphasize the socio-cultural co-construction and co-dependence of dis/ability and ability. I define dis/ability as: (1)
temporary, episodic, transient, chronic, and permanent variations in mental, emotional, and/or physical functioning
or appearance that deviate from society’s accepted norm; (2) the simultaneous oppression of bodyminds deviating
from the norm (through ableism, neoliberalism, racism, colonialism, imperialism, other “isms”, and the goal of
assimilation) AND the physical, material, and psychological pain of impairment as well as the impact and fear of
having a body-mind that is labeled as deviating from society’s accepted norm; (3) existing within a diverse and often
fluid spectrum of appearance or visibility, sometimes being readily apparent and sometimes not so readily apparent;
(4) a product of the co-dependent social, political, historical, & legal construction of dis/ability and ability; (5) unique
to each individual’s holistic intersectional/multidimensional experience, perspective, history, lived reality, and ways
of knowing (which cannot be disaggregated across individual identities).
 Page iii

being, health, and academics. It also offers opportunities to broaden awareness; challenge bias

and violence; honor student agency; emancipate learners and educators from systems of

oppression; support the supporters; and share resources and opportunities.

 Page iv

DEDICATION

***Content warning: loss and grief. Reader discretion is advised.

I dedicate my dissertation to my father and best friend, Douglas (Doug) Keith

Beardmore. He was my most steadfast supporter. He was always there for me even when I did

not want him to be—which was when I needed him the most. He believed in me. He was so

proud of me. He kept me going on some of my darkest days. He passed away about halfway

through my graduate education. Completing this dissertation, let alone living, has been

excruciating without him.

***End content warning: loss and grief

 Page v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To those I lost during my graduate studies, father Doug, my aunt Jackie, my uncle Ed, my

cousin Tim, my cousin Jimmy, and my Grandma Georgia, may you rest in peace.

To those I lost before my graduate education, my grandma Millie, my grandma Jerry, my

grandpa Keith, my grandpa Eugene, my cousin Tom, may you rest in peace.

To my aunt Char, my aunt Gayle, my uncle David, my sister Kaitlin, my cousin Debbie,

and my cousin Mike, thank you for your support along the way.

To all those amazing people who have adopted me, to my chosen family, to my tribe,

and to my community, thank you for choosing me. Thank you for supporting me. Thank you for

making me who I am. Thank you for giving me the space to be who I am meant to be.

To the research participants, thank you for your contribution to this research. Thank you

for our conversations. Thank you for your trust in me. Thank you for helping me feel a little less

alone.

To the readers of this dissertation, thank you for undertaking this journey with me.

Please know that I am still learning and growing. I may have used harmful language or made

decisions from biases I may not yet know I have. Additionally, I have cited people who may have

used language or made decisions in ways I disagree with. I cite them for the contributions they

made to the things I value. I try to observe their journey from a growth mindset as I hope the

readers do for me.

To my research advisors Angie Bielefeldt and Keith Molenaar; thank you for the

guidance, mentorship, feedback, and steadfast advocacy you have given me.
 Page vi

To my other dissertation committee members Robyn, JoAnn, and Becca; thank you for

your guidance, mentorship, feedback, and support.

To my many mentors including Eric Showalter, Richard (Doc) Stephenson; Stephen

Collins, Robin Black, Phil Courey, and so many others I have not named here, thank you for

helping me grow.

To Julie Langenfeld, Brianne Beers, Gayle McVay, John Gemperline, Doug Beardmore,

Glenda Beardmore, Robyn Sandekian, Angie Bielefeldt, Keith Molenaar, Alison Boardman, thank

you for reviewing my writing and giving me feedback (especially around my dreadful spelling).

To those who helped fund my education I also give thanks. My master’s degree was

funded in part by the K. Stanton Lewis Construction Engineering Management Fellowship. The

final semester of this work was funded by The Civil, Environmental, and Architectural

Engineering (CEAE) Dissertation Completion Award. The compensation of participants was

supported by the Beverley Sears Student Research Grant award. The presentation of this

research at conferences was partially funded by the Graduate School Student Travel Grant and

the College of Engineering and Applied Science Dean’s Matching Travel Grant.

To whom the land on which I work and reside belongs I also give my thanks. I conducted

this research while studying at and working for the University of Colorado Boulder. The land

acknowledgment adopted by the University of Colorado System is available at

https://president.cu.edu/statements/cu-systemwide-lands-recognition-statement. I choose not

to include the statement here. While it recognizes a “history of ill treatment and forced

removal” it does not acknowledge the historical and ongoing legacy of genocide, ethnic

cleansing, and stolen land in what is now called the United States and Colorado. Rather, I
 Page vii

choose to begin with the statement adopted by the Broadening Opportunity through

Leadership and Diversity (BOLD) Center in the College of Engineering and Applied Science:

We honor and acknowledge that the University of Colorado’s four campuses are
located on the traditional territories and ancestral homelands of the Cheyenne,
Arapaho, Ute, Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Lakota, Pueblo, and Shoshone Tribes.
Further, we acknowledge the 48 contemporary tribal nations historically tied to
the lands that comprise what is now called Colorado. We recognize the
descendant communities of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Montana, the
Northern Arapahoe Tribe of Wyoming, and the Southern Cheyenne and
Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma who were forcibly removed from this land and
deeply impacted by motivations of Western and Eurocentric colonization. We
also acknowledge the Southern Ute Tribe and the Ute Mountain Tribe, which are
the only two federally recognized tribes in Colorado. And we want to take this
moment to reflect and honor Indigenous Peoples’ by creating a space of
visibility, recognition, and solidarity.

Today, Colorado is home to many different citizens of Indigenous nations, and

we recognize their enduring presence on this land by paying respects to their
elders, both past and present. Please take a moment to consider the legacies of
violence, genocide, ethnic cleansing, displacement, migration, and resettlement
that continue to occur this present day. Additionally, please join us in uncovering
such truths at all future public events. Let us spend today, and this week,
celebrating the past, present, and future contributions of our Indigenous/Native
student body, staff, and faculty in the fields of STEM, medicine, governance, and
leadership, including the American Indian Science & Engineering Society (aka
AISES) housed under The BOLD Center.

It is because of the wisdom, sacrifices, hardships, perseverance, and resilience of

the traditional Indigenous inhabitants of this land that we are able to congregate
in BOLD to learn, grow, collaborate, celebrate, share knowledge, and to build a
community.

I would like to further acknowledge that all institutions of higher education are located

on Indigenous land. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge the historical and present-day use

of U.S. “education” as a tool of oppression (Brayboy, 2005). The U.S. education system has and

continues to enforce the colonial goal of assimilation (Brayboy, 2005).

 Page viii

Land acknowledgments help us understand the longstanding history of colonialism that

has brought each of us to reside on the homelands of Indigenous Nations; however, land

acknowledgments are often created without the Nations they claim to acknowledge. Further,

when Indigenous peoples are included in the formation of such statements their contribution

and emotional labor is often uncompensated. Institutions who do not center the leadership of

tribal elders maintain the use of education as a tool of oppression. Such institutions do not

honor the sovereignty of Tribal Nations. Action is required to honor Indigenous Nations.
 Page ix

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. The problem 1
1.2. Dis/ability in higher education 4
1.3. The gap in literature 9
1.3.1. Barriers faced by graduate students 13
1.3.2. Barriers faced by STEM students 14
1.4. Motivation 15
1.5. Purpose 16
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMING 19
2.1. Introduction to the framework 20
2.2. Identity vs person first language 20
2.3. Spelling dis/ability with a slash 22
2.4. Foundational frameworks 24
2.5. The Medical model of dis/ability 26
2.5.1. The logics of eugenics 27
2.5.2. The medical model and U.S. education 28
2.6. The social model of dis/ability 28
2.6.1. The social model and U.S. education 30
2.6.2. Limitations of the social model 32
2.7. Critical theories 33
2.8. Critical dis/ability theory 34
2.8.1. Dis/ability as oppression and impairment 35
2.8.2. Challenging non-dis/abled assumptions 37
2.8.3. Diversity as a value and equality as a right 39
2.8.4. Dis/ability as intersectional 40
2.8.5. Evolution of critical dis/ability theory 42
2.8.6. Limitations of critical dis/ability studies 43
2.9. DisCrit and tribal critical race theory 44
2.10. Dis/ability justice 47
2.11. Comparing the theories 49
 Page x

2.12. Mixing the theories together 51

CHAPTER 3. METHODS 60
3.1. Study design 61
3.2. Participant pool 65
3.2.1. Recruitment 65
3.2.2. Sample size 66
3.2.3. Saturation 68
3.2.4. Generalizability 68
3.2.5. Resonance 69
3.3. Ethical considerations 70
3.3.1. Relational ethics 70
3.3.2. Ensuring privacy and confidentiality 72
3.3.3. Doing no harm 72
3.3.4. Informed consent 73
3.4. Data 73
3.5. Data collection 74
3.5.1. Interview protocol 76
3.5.2. Interview format 77
3.5.3. Interview duration 78
3.6. Data analysis 79
3.6.1. Harvey’s Process 80
3.6.2. Grounded theory 82
3.6.3. Thematic analysis 82
3.6.4. Negotiated process 83
3.6.5. Constructed narrative analysis 84
3.7. Presentation of results 84
3.7.1. Representing intersectionality 85
3.7.2. Pseudonyms and pronouns 86
3.7.3. Multiple methods of presentation 87
3.7.4. Chapter 5 89
3.7.5. Chapter 6 90
3.7.6. Chapter 7 91
3.8. Research Questions 91
 Page xi

3.8.1. Chapter 5 92
3.8.2. Chapter 6 93
3.8.3. Chapter 7 94
3.9. Author positionality 95
CHAPTER 4. PARTICIPANTS 99
4.1. Identifying Participant Demographics 99
4.2. Constructing Participant Identities 100
4.2.1. A poetic Approach 100
4.2.2. Considering Intersecting Identities 101
4.2.3. In their words 102
4.2.4. Translating themes into stanzas 102
4.3. Resulting amalgamations 103
4.3.1. Participant institutions 103
4.3.2. Participant careers 104
4.3.3. Participant accommodation timelines 104
4.3.4. Participant identity poem 104
4.4. Discussion of participant identities 106
4.4.1. Diagnoses 106
4.4.2. Claimed & unclaimed identities 108
4.5. Participant remarks on study participation 111
CHAPTER 5. ALIENATING ENVIRONMENT 112
5.1. Introduction 113
5.1.1. Problem 113
5.1.2. Literature review 114
5.1.3. Theoretical framing 115
5.1.4. Purpose 122
5.1.5. Research Questions 123
5.2. Methods 123
5.3. Findings and discussion 124
5.3.1. Powerlessness 126
5.3.2. Normlessness 130
5.3.3. Social Isolation 135
5.4. Concluding remarks 149
 Page xii

CHAPTER 6. CULTURE OF PRODUCTIVITY 152

6.1. Introduction 152
6.1.1. Problem 152
6.1.2. Theoretical Framing 155
6.1.3. Purpose 160
6.1.4. Research Questions 160
6.2. Methods 160
6.3. Findings and Discussion 161
6.3.1. Efficiency 163
6.3.2. The illusion of choice 167
6.3.3. The fear of dis/ability 171
6.3.4. Apathy 173
6.3.5. Competition 175
6.4. Concluding remarks 177
CHAPTER 7. RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE IN POWER 181
7.1. Introduction 182
7.1.1. Problem 182
7.1.2. Background 185
7.1.3. Purpose 189
7.1.4. Research questions 189
7.2. Methods 189
7.3. Results 190
7.4. Discussion 199
7.4.1. Violence 200
7.4.2. Control 215
7.4.3. Support 219
7.4.4. Power and impact 227
7.5. Concluding remarks 230
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS 232
8.1. Summary of Key Points 232
8.1.1. Academic alienation 237
8.1.2. Culture of productivity 239
8.1.3. Relations with people in power 242
 Page xiii

8.2. Challenges 243

8.2.1. Apathy and ignorance 243
8.2.2. Subjugation 246
8.3. Opportunities for growth 248
8.3.1. Awareness 250
8.3.2. Challenging bias and violence 255
8.3.3. Emancipating learners and educators 259
8.3.4. Supporting the supporters 268
8.3.5. Sharing resources and opportunities 271
8.4. Limitations and future research 272
8.4.1. Methods 275
8.4.2. Context 277
8.4.3. Additional areas of interest 278
8.5. Closing 281
CHAPTER 9. REFERENCES 283
 Page xiv

TABLES

Table 2-A: A comparison of dis/ability definitions ....................................................................... 50

Table 2-B: A comparison of key tenets ......................................................................................... 51
Table 3-A: Summary of chapter presentation methods ............................................................... 88
 Page xv

FIGURES

Figure 2-A: Conceptualization of Dis/ability Timeline .................................................................. 25

Figure 2-B: Six theories as pigments being swirled together in a paint can ................................. 53
Figure 2-C: Three theories as pigments being swirled together in a paint can ............................ 53
Figure 2-D: The homogenized paint representing the framework ............................................... 55
Figure 3-A: Phase 1 & 2 methods.................................................................................................. 60
Figure 5-A: Dimensions of Alienation ......................................................................................... 125
Figure 7-A: Interpersonal impacts of faculty power ................................................................... 228
Figure 8-A: Opportunities for growth ......................................................................................... 249
 Page 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The problem

The Council of Graduate Schools states that “Improving completion rates for all doctoral

students, and particularly for those from underrepresented groups, is vital to meeting our

nation's present and future workforce needs” (Council of Graduate Schools, n.d.). Worldwide,

doctoral programs report completion rates of 50% (Rigler Jr et al., 2017). Studies find this

number to be even lower for STEM students from underrepresented backgrounds (Lamb et al.,

2022; Sowell et al., 2015; Stewart et al., 2015). The high attrition rates of nonnormative

students in STEM graduate programs has a significant detrimental impact on society and the

STEM workforce of the future (Sowell et al., 2015).

The attrition of diverse voices in STEM limits our creativity, innovation, and progress.

Understanding the barriers that STEM students from underrepresented backgrounds face is of

paramount importance (Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM Federal Coordination

in STEM Education Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021). Studies suggest that students

with dis/abilities may be the first to be affected by policies and practices that ultimately affect

all students (Jacklin, 2011). Since graduate students occupy multiple roles as students,

researchers, and educators, the insights and recommendations offered from exploring the
 Page 2

experiences of dis/abled 2 graduate students 3 have the potential to benefit all college students,

researchers, and educators.

Publications regarding the enrollment, retention, and graduation rates of graduate

students with dis/abilities are scarce (Institute of Education Sciences (IES), n.d.; Lillywhite &

Wolbring, 2019; Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017; National Educational Association of Disabled

Students, 2019; Powers, 2021). The most recently published report from the National Science

Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates (for doctorates earned in 2021) does not report data

on a variety of dis/abilities (National Science Foundation, 2022b). Despite this lack of data,

some sources estimate the population of graduate students disclosing their dis/ability status to

be around five to ten percent (Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017).

The definition of dis/ability varies from study to study but often refers to dis/ability in a

matter resembling the Americans with Dis/abilities Act (ADA). The ADA refers to a dis/ability as

a physical 4 or mental 5 impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life

activities (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 1990). Under the act, an impairment is a

2
Dis/ability (spelled dis slash ability) is a split term, born out of critical ableist scholarship and activism,
acknowledging the ways in which dis/ability and ability are always reliant upon one another. I further discuss the
theorization of dis/ability in the theoretical framing section of this dissertation (Goodley et al., 2019).

3The terms graduate, postgraduate, and postbaccalaureate are sometimes used synonymously in the literature;
however, postgraduate can refer to a student who has received only a high school diploma or a student who has
also received a collegiate-level degree.

4
The ADA defines physical impairments as “any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or
anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs,
respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory,
hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 1990).

5
The ADA includes psychological disorders/mental illness/emotional disturbance (e.g., depression), learning
dis/abilities (e.g., dyslexia), developmental dis/abilities (e.g., autism spectrum disorder) and intellectual dis/abilities
(e.g., down syndrome) under the purview of mental impairments (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 1990).
 Page 3

dis/ability if it is temporary but lasts more than six months (e.g., recoverable orthopedic

impairment), chronic but episodic in nature (e.g., autoimmune disease), or permanently

present (e.g., blindness).

Noting that the Centers for Disease Control estimates that around 25% of people in the

United States have dis/abilities, it is likely that many people with less apparent dis/abilities are

overlooked in our current body of knowledge (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021; Vergunst & Swartz,

2021). Some estimates exist on the population size of undergraduate students with dis/abilities

(Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017). Note these are rough estimates, as many people choose

not to disclose their dis/abilities (Grimes et al., 2017, 2020; Magnus & Tøssebro, n.d.; S. A.

Smith et al., 2019). If a similar percentage of graduate students choose not to disclose their

dis/abilities as undergraduate students, the number of graduate students with dis/abilities may

be three times that of the disclosing population—meaning 15 to 30 percent of graduate

students could have dis/abilities.

Similarly little is known about the completion rates of dis/abled graduate students

(Institute of Education Sciences (IES), n.d.; Lillywhite & Wolbring, 2019; Lizotte & Clifford

Simplican, 2017; National Educational Association of Disabled Students, 2019; Powers, 2021);

however, some studies find that undergraduate students reporting they have a dis/ability

complete their studies at a lower rate than those who do not disclose having a dis/ability (Hinz

et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2011; Wagner et al., 2005). Specifically, the U.S. Department of

Education found the percentages to be 34% to 52%, respectively (Newman et al., 2011, p. 48).

Despite the Council of Graduate Schools’ call to improve the completion rates of

graduate students, profound barriers remain. There is lack of attention given to recruiting and
 Page 4

engaging dis/abled individuals in STEM programs (Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in

STEM Federal Coordination in STEM Education Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021). We

(those of us in higher education) generally ignore students with dis/abilities in institutional

policies and departmental practices (Meeks et al., 2020; Rose, 2010), instruction and advising

practices (National Educational Association of Disabled Students, 2019), and academic research

and dissemination (Lillywhite & Wolbring, 2019; Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017). We also

ignore the ableist barriers we have “normalized” in academia (Dolmage, 2017) and STEM

(Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). We socially marginalize, stigmatize, discredit, and devalue people

with dis/abilities in engineering culture (E. Cech, 2021). When we obfuscate the inclusion of

dis/abled graduate students, we actively encourage their exclusion.

1.2. Dis/ability in higher education

To understand the experiences of postsecondary students, especially graduate students,

it is important to first contextualize how dis/ability is treated within the U.S. education system.

The current accessibility framework puts the onus on the dis/abled person to self-advocate.

They must navigate an intricate web of unremunerated negotiations, rarely with the promise of

a positive outcome (Karpicz, 2020). This is especially true in STEM programs (Reinholz &

Ridgway, 2021). Moreover, the dis/ability accommodation process is used in institutions of

higher education to surveil, police, pathologize, and criminalize dis/ability (Mireles, 2020).

While Chapter 2 provides a more in-depth consideration of the theorization of

dis/ability in the U.S. education system, I outline the accomodations process, commonly used in

institutions of postsecondary education here:

 Page 5

First, a person must identify their access needs and learn their needs qualify for

accommodations (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). Access needs are what each human needs in

order to access or fully participate in a space or activity (Sins Invalid, 2019). All people have

access needs (Sins Invalid, 2019). It may be difficult to identify one’s access needs if they are

already being met (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). One’s access needs are unique, fluid, and

dependent on context. Many people develop or are diagnosed with dis/abilities after

completing their K-12 education (Hosking, 2008) which can make it difficult to identify one’s

access needs. Moreover, the stress of graduate school is linked with the onset of dis/abilities

related to mental health (Khan, 2021).

Second, a dis/abled person must learn what accommodations are available at their

institution and how to access them (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). The existing dis/ability policies

and practices in higher education do not serve all dis/abled students; rather they legitimize

certain lived experiences (those who had institutional recognition) while delegitimizing and

dehumanizing others (Mireles, 2020). This can be particularly difficult as some dis/ability

services offices may not disclose what accommodations are available to students or employees

(Beardmore, 2022b).

Third, dis/abled people must seek and pay for an “official” medical diagnosis and obtain

documentation to prove they are dis/abled “enough” to receive accommodations (Reinholz &

Ridgway, 2021). Mireles (2020) argues that requiring medical documentation as ‘proof’

delegitimizes lived experiences and reinforces the perception that dis/abled people are not

knowledge-holders let alone knowledge-producers. It invalidates, discredits, and delegitimizes

 Page 6

the experiential and embodied knowledge of dis/abled Black, Indigenous, and People of Color

(Mireles, 2020).

Fourth, dis/abled people must disclose their dis/ability (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021).

Often this means registering with their University’s dis/ability services office (Mireles, 2020).

The logic behind such a process resembles the attitude used to justify criminal registries

(Mireles, 2020). I would also argue it resembles some of the assumptions behind the U.S.

Bureau of Indian Affairs maintaining a blood quantum registry. The carceral nature of how

universities respond to dis/ability is further demonstrated in how universities use campus

police to respond to mental health crisis response (Mireles, 2020).

Fifth, dis/abled people must submit proof of their dis/ability and request

accommodations from their university’s Dis/ability Services Office (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021).

Then they must wait for the office to determine if they are indeed dis/abled “enough” for the

office to grant them accommodations and if such accommodations are “reasonable.” Such a

requirement positions medical professions, universities, and dis/ability services offices in

particular, as authorities of dis/ability. Mireles shows that these policies are not objective since

some dis/abled students are denied services due to the dis/ability services office’s perception

of the severity of a student’s dis/abilitie(s), even after students provide multiple forms of

medical documentation 6. Rather than being “objective”, such a requirement privileges

constructions of dis/ability rooted in hegemonic whiteness. It reinforces the labeling of Black,

6 The accommodation framework used in many institutions of higher education ignores the large body of research
documenting medical racism and racialized barriers obstructing access to healthcare, medical doctors,
infrastructure, work, social services, public space, and health itself (Mireles, 2020).
 Page 7

Indigenous, and People of Color intellectually and academically inferior, lazy, and deviant

(Mireles, 2020).

Sixth, to actually receive accommodations, students must exhibit forced intimacy—

being forced to exhibit extreme vulnerability in order to exist in hostile ableist environments,

which are built for the “ideal”-body/minded person (Mingus, 2017). They are often required to

engage in forced intimacy with not only each of their instructors but also their faculty research

advisor and peers (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). Institutions often leave the final decision on

whether an accommodation is reasonable and fair to University Faculty. Thus, the student must

request each of their instructors and supervisors grant their accommodations. This is

problematic given that faculty members are often uncertain what “reasonable”

accommodations are and what their role is in implementing them (McGinty, 2016).

Moreover, making faculty the ultimate decision-makers is problematic because of the

disproportionate resistance faculty have to providing accommodations to dis/abled graduate

students of color (Karpicz, 2020). Dis/abled students of color must engage in higher levels of

forced intimacy than their white peers (Karpicz, 2020). Pearson and Dickens (2021) note “this is

traumatic and triggering, especially when multiply oppressed individuals grow up knowing they

are different, knowing they are not normal, while being ‘forced’ (aka encouraged) to strive to

be as normal as the ideal.”

Such an accommodation process usually requires exhausting emotional labor (N. Brown

& Leigh, 2020; Mireles, 2020). This approach to dis/ability often results in a difficult choice

between different forms of oppression. Choosing to not disclose often means conforming to

ableist expectations and not having access to the accommodations/support that could help
 Page 8

meet a person’s access needs (Pearson & Dickens, 2021). Alternately, choosing to disclose in

the university setting may call an individual’s competency into question (Pearson & Dickens,

2021) due to the socially reinforced stigma of dis/ability (Grimes et al., 2017, 2020; Sanchez-

Pena et al., 2021). Mingus (2011) notes in a keynote address that even when dis/abled

individuals know of and recognize that a particular service may be helpful they may not seek

support because “it can be very dangerous to identify as dis/abled when your survival depends

on you denying it.”

Both disclosure and nondisclosure can negatively impact dis/abled students and

employees. Dis/abled individuals not only face the question of if they should disclose but also

when and to whom they will disclose their dis/ability status. If an individual chooses to disclose

their dis/ability during the application or interview process for a job or grant opportunity,

evaluators may consciously or unconsciously assume the applicant is unable or less able to do

rigorous or impactful work (Swenor et al., 2020). This is particularly relevant given that many

graduate students need to simultaneously fill multiple roles as students and employees (often

as teaching assistants or research assistants) to fund their education. For example, the 2021

national survey of earned doctorates reported that the primary source of funding for 60

percent of science and engineering doctoral recipients had been teaching and research

assistantships (National Science Foundation, 2022a). Peterson (2021) describes how decision-

makers may assume the applicant is unprepared, incapable, or a liability. This commonly held

bias is especially prevalent in academic departments, where a reference to less apparent

dis/abilities such as mental illness is considered a “kiss of death” in the graduate application

process (Appleby & Appleby, 2006). Alternatively, waiting to disclose a dis/ability until after
 Page 9

being awarded an opportunity can damage one’s relationship with their employer and peers

(Peterson, 2021). Employers may doubt a person’s credibility and trustworthiness (Peterson,

2021). Employers may even feel duped or taken advantage of if an employee waits to disclose

(Peterson, 2021).

Further complicating the decision to disclose, academics (students, staff, and faculty)

may not want to identify as part of a group they perceive to be excluded from their chosen

profession (Grimes, 2020). Pearson and Dickens (2021) describe how the ableist values

embedded in methodological texts, methods courses, and the research community dictate

what constitutes “good” research and who can be considered a researcher. Similarly, they note

how the monoculture of research erases alternative ways of thinking and engaging. Thus, some

dis/abled academics believe nondisclosure is necessary to protect them from being discredited

in their learning environment (Grimes, 2020). This is especially true of graduate students

(Jacklin, 2011).

1.3. The gap in literature

Despite the differences in primary, secondary, tertiary, and graduate education, there is

a dearth of knowledge pertaining to dis/ability in STEM postsecondary education and dis/ability

in graduate education. The current literature available in Web of Science, the American Society

for Engineering Education (ASEE) Papers on Engineering Education Repository (PEER) 7, and

several of the leading educational journals highlight the scarcity of literature exploring these

7 Articles in PEER are peer reviewed conference proceedings.

 Page 10

topics. More specifically, there is a paucity of research exploring the perceptions and

experiences of dis/abled STEM students (James et al., 2018), graduate students (Lizotte &

Clifford Simplican, 2017), and student researchers (Lillywhite & Wolbring, 2019). Even less is

known about the population of graduate students with less apparent dis/abilities (Vergunst &

Swartz, 2021).

Most of the research surrounding dis/ability in higher education 8 is aimed at

undergraduate students (Lillywhite & Wolbring, 2019; Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017). A

literature search on dis/ability AND University, College, Academy, OR Higher Education reveals

that much of this literature focuses on undergraduate coursework accommodations (e.g.,

Dolmage, 2017; Liasidou, 2014) and self-advocacy (e.g., Kamperman, 2020; Karpicz, 2020).

However, the undergraduate subset of dis/ability studies in education (DSE) is expanding. As an

example, McGinty (2016) studied Colorado State University faculty concerns regarding

accommodations and accessible learning materials. This included an assessment of faculty

understanding of accommodation policies, willingness to provide formal accommodations, and

adaptation of universal design for instruction (McGinty, 2016). Additionally, Mireles (2020)

studied the racialized experiences of dis/abled undergraduate students through a framework

called racist ableism. Mireles (2020) interweaves DisCrit, critical race theory, and racist nativism

to examine the ways in which dis/ability and race intersected and perpetuated inequity for

8 Please note that I sometimes refer to postsecondary, tertiary, college-level, or collegiate education as higher
education. I refer to this level of education as “higher” education to refer to the sequence of education. I do not use
“higher” to imply that collegiate education is more important than primary or secondary education.
 Page 11

Black, Indigenous, and undergraduate students of color. Using this framework, called racist

ableism.

There are also a few exceptions to the undergraduate focus of dis/ability studies in

higher education. Hutcheon and Wolbring (2012) studied the language used by six Canadian

dis/abled undergraduate students and one graduate student to describe dis/ability. Hernández-

Saca et al. (2018) reviewed dis/ability research in K-16 educational contexts that focused on

intersectionality and the construction of dis/abled experiences. Brown and Leaigh (2020)

introduce the ableism faced by Ph.D. students, faculty, and staff with chronic illness through

the voices of a collective of researchers in their book Ableism in Academia. Pearson and Dickens

(2021) note how qualitative researchers with dis/abilities face structural barriers in conducting

research. However, not all dis/ability studies in higher education highlight barriers. Terras et al.

(2015) note there may be enhanced opportunities for graduate students to self-advocate for

accommodations in the online classroom. However, a significant gap in knowledge remains

regarding the experiences of graduate students with dis/abilities (Lillywhite & Wolbring, 2019;

Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017).

To make the change needed to retain graduate STEM students we must understand the

experiences of graduate students. Scholars have pointed out that the barriers to students in

graduate programs may be substantially different from those facing undergraduate students

(Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017; Rose, 2010). Graduate students and undergraduate students

often follow different paths in the academic environment. They serve divergent roles, face

separate challenges, and have different experiences. Yet, there is very little research present

regarding the accommodation or access needs of graduate students (Rose, 2010).

 Page 12

Even in the classroom graduate students may be expected to meet different

expectations than their undergraduate counterparts. This may include a greater volume of

reading. It may also involve assignments requiring the reading of multiple sources, each of

which the student may be expected to have converted into alternative formats—e.g., screen-

readable PDFs or braille (Farrar, 2006). Graduate students are often expected to understand

and communicate complex concepts in technical jargon they may not have been exposed to in

their undergraduate studies (Farrar, 2006).

Accommodations provided for undergraduate students, while potentially helpful in

some aspects of coursework, are inadequate to address the needs of graduate students in

many other contexts. While some graduate students may only be pursuing their education

through coursework, many also conduct research. Thus, many graduate students face obstacles

beyond the classroom—in their ability to meet with advisors, attend conferences, and develop

social support from their peers—that undergraduate students may not face (Lizotte & Clifford

Simplican, 2017). Similarly, they face unique obstacles in their independent research activities

(Lillywhite & Wolbring, 2019), navigating the milestones of a thesis or dissertation (Rose, 2010),

and accessing conferences or fieldwork (Farrar, 2006). Academic accommodations are unlikely

to address all the needs of graduate students serving in multifaceted roles as instructors,

researchers, and authors. Even if formal accommodations are approved, they will likely be

inadequate to address all the systemic and attitudinal barriers encountered by graduate

students (Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017).

 Page 13

1.3.1. Barriers faced by graduate students

Some of the burdens faced by graduate students with dis/abilities engaged in

coursework, research, and teaching have been identified. However, most of these studies are

quantitative surveys asking about specific types of barriers rather than exploring the barriers or

the students’ experiences. A 2016 Canadian study highlighted some institutional and policy

level issues—finding that a greater percentage of students with dis/abilities reported

availability of faculty, program structure or requirements, course scheduling, and

work/financial commitments as major obstacles (National Educational Association of Disabled

Students, 2019). Studies have also found that students with dis/abilities carry a greater financial

burden than students without dis/abilities, especially graduate students. The 2016 Canadian

study found that 41% of graduate students without dis/abilities versus 64% of graduate

students with dis/abilities participating in their study carried debt from their graduate

education (National Educational Association of Disabled Students, 2019). Similarly, in 2018 the

National Science Foundation found that graduate students with dis/abilities in the United States

(U.S.) received less funding than graduate students without dis/abilities—forcing them to

frequently rely on loans and personal finances (U.S. Department of Education, National Center

for Education Statistics, 2019). A 2020 study showed that burdens such as these may have been

disproportionately exacerbated for students with dis/abilities during the Covid 19 pandemic

(Soria et al., 2020). However, the 2016 and 2018 studies were primarily limited to students with

highly apparent dis/abilities, as perceived through the medical model of dis/ability, and the

2020 study was limited to undergraduate students. While the proportion of graduate students

with apparent versus less apparent dis/abilities is not known, the majority of accommodation
 Page 14

requests for undergraduate students have been for less apparent dis/abilities in recent years

(M. Gordon & Keiser, 2000). Yet, very little research has been done on students with less

apparent dis/abilities (Vergunst & Swartz, 2021).

Additionally, a few studies have quantitatively measured graduate students’

dissatisfaction in their academic experiences. However, little empirical research has been done

to qualitatively explore or measure the students’ satisfaction. When ranking their overall

experiences at their university, 10-12% fewer graduate students with dis/abilities, as opposed

to those without dis/abilities, ranked their overall experience as “good” or higher in the 2016

Canadian study. The study also found that students with dis/abilities were 8%-9% less likely to

recommend their university to someone considering their program (National Educational

Association of Disabled Students, 2019).

1.3.2. Barriers faced by STEM students

These negative experiences and barriers may be particularly prevalent in STEM. Both

students and professionals with dis/abilities are socially marginalized, stigmatized, discredited,

and devalued in engineering (E. Cech, 2021); yet there is a paucity in research exploring the

perceptions and experiences of STEM students with dis/abilities in their postsecondary

experiences (James et al., 2018). The ratio of students enrolled in STEM programs with

dis/abilities to those without dis/abilities may be much less than in other disciplines. A 2016

study found that although 19.5% of undergraduate students reported a dis/ability only 5.7% of

undergraduate students enrolled in engineering programs in the U.S. reported having a

dis/ability (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). The
 Page 15

2016 report lacked this same information on graduate students however a Canadian survey

from the same year reported that 15% of the graduate population without dis/abilities were

enrolled in engineering programs vs 5% of the graduate population with dis/abilities (National

Educational Association of Disabled Students, 2019).

1.4. Motivation

I am a graduate student with dis/abilities. I have an autoimmune disorder (psoriatic

arthritis/ankylosing spondylitis), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression,

chronic migraine disorder, a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD). While I have experienced some of these since childhood, I wasn’t diagnosed

with any of them until after I completed my undergraduate education. However, I first

experienced or was diagnosed with most of them during my graduate education. I have come

up against barrier after barrier during my graduate studies. My advisors and I have had to

circumnavigate or petition for exceptions to policy after policy so that I could participate in my

graduate studies. At first, my internalized ableism led me to believe the barriers I encountered

were my fault. Once I started sharing my Story with others, many people shared their Stories of

dis/ability with me. As I started learning about inclusive pedagogy, I started to realize I was not

alone in encountering barriers. I started realizing that these barriers were not due to my

deficiencies. Rather the barriers were consequences of what I now refer to as structural

ableism. Furthermore, I realized that I, like other graduate students with dis/abilities, do not

feel included in academia.

 Page 16

I have had great difficulty finding resources to accommodate myself. This has taken a

large amount of my time and energy away from my studies. Of course, I was not surprised to

learn there was very little research in this area. However, I am angry. I want to undertake this

research to share the experiences of graduate students with dis/abilities, promote awareness

of structural ableism in our academic journeys, and motivate change.

Significance: This dissertation is meant to be a first step in addressing the gaps in

knowledge identified by Lizotte and Clifford Simplican (2017) and Lillywhite and Wolbring

(2019). This dissertation will not and cannot remedy the deficiencies in prior research. This gap

in knowledge is simply too vast. Instead, this dissertation will contribute to scholarly literature

by exploring and sharing the experiences of a subset of students with dis/abilities. This

dissertation will identify areas that need further study. It will motivate, propose, and prioritize

future areas of inquiry. It will support awareness of structural ableism in STEM. Most of all, I

hope it will motivate change—increasing social justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (SJEDI) in

academia and beyond.

1.5. Purpose

The purpose of this dissertation was to explore and describe the experiences of STEM

graduate students, with less apparent or nonapparent dis/abilities, in their graduate academic

journey. It is important to recognize that an individual’s experience with dis/ability cannot be

isolated from the multitude of identities through which the individual perceives and
 Page 17

experiences the world. Thus, this study explored the experiences of multidimensional 9 students

who were dis/abled with inclusion, privilege, and oppression, rather than their experiences of

dis/ability itself.

Originally, my dissertation research was structured around the following three research

questions:

Research Question 1: How are STEM graduate students with less apparent or

nonapparent dis/abilities experiencing interpersonal interactions they encounter as

they navigate the academic environment?

Research Question 2: How are STEM graduate students with less apparent or

nonapparent dis/abilities experiencing the culture and climate of their academic

environment?

Research Question 3: How are STEM graduate students with less apparent or

nonapparent dis/abilities experiencing dis/ability in the institutional structure of their

academic environment?

While the three original research questions guided the design of this study they do not

individually map to particular chapters. The abundance and wealth of knowledge collected in

this study were immediately clear. As will be discussed in Chapter 8, additional themes will

likely be analyzed and disseminated over the next several years. However, as is required in a

9 Multidimensionality, also known as intersectionality, as defined in Chapter 2, is an analytical framework for

understanding how the interdependent systems of oppression and privilege interconnect, compound, conflict, and
overlap in a person’s experience afforded by the convergence and divergence of the individuals’ socio-cultural
categorizations, capital, and community cultural wealth.
 Page 18

dissertation, I prioritized three topics for immediate dissemination. I chose each based on its

novelty and potential for practical impact. As a result, the focus of Chapter 5 is academic

alienation or estrangement. The focus of Chapter 6 is the STEM academic culture of

productivity. The focus of Chapter 7 is the interpersonal interactions and relationships between

graduate students and academics in positions of power. The experience of these phenomena is

likely not unique to dis/abled students. Dis/abled students are often among the first to be

impacted by practices that ultimately impact all students (Jacklin, 2011). Thus, this research

may identify some of the ways in which these phenomena may be impacting all students.
 Page 19

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMING

Dis/ability 10 is a complex, evolving, and nuanced concept. There are a diversity of

opinions on how to define disability (including dis/ability) emanating from multiple eras of

scholarship and activism. Our knowledge of dis/ability, at a societal level, has been limited by

our difficulty in defining the “dynamic and contested nature” of dis/ability (Lizotte & Clifford

Simplican, 2017). Recognizing the absence of a clear definition of dis/ability, I propose a

theoretical framework through which we can examine the dis/abled tertiary STEM student’s

experiences.

This chapter explores and contextually situates conceptualizations of dis/ability. It

deductively maps the experiences of seven STEM graduate students to prior literature and

activism (e.g., critical dis/ability theory, dis/ability critical race theory (DisCrit), tribal crit, and

dis/ability Justice). It offers a framework with the intention to (1) disrupt the deficit narrative of

dis/ability and the normative ideal of ability; (2) emphasize the socio-cultural co-construction

and co-dependence of dis/ability and ability; (3) recognize dis/ability and ability as social,

political, historical, and legal constructions of ableism 11, racism, heterosexism, eugenics, and

other systems of oppression in academia and society; (4) appreciate the uniqueness of each

individual’s intersectional/multidimensional 12 experience and perception; (5) acknowledge the

temporary, episodic, transient, chronic, and permanent variations of dis/ability and the often

fluid levels of apparentness dis/ability can have; and (6) recognize dis/ability as the often

10
The reason behind spelling dis/ability as dis slash ability is presented in section 2.4.

11
Ableism is defined in section 2.8.

12
Intersectionality and multidimensionality are defined in section 2.10.4.
 Page 20

simultaneous oppression of body/minds deviating from the norm, the fear of dis/ability, the

physical, material, and psychological pain of impairment, and the impacts of being labeled as

deviating from the norm.

This chapter provides students, staff, educators, researchers, administrators, and

policymakers with a starting point and common language from which to discuss dis/ability in

STEM education. This model is meant to expand and grow as we, the dis/abled and engineering

education communities, learn more together. It will help researchers and practitioners confront

abuse and oppression and advocate for access and inclusion from a perspective informed by

multidimensional experience.

2.1. Introduction to the framework

Before exploring the different conceptualizations of dis/ability in this Chapter, I first

introduce how I define dis/ability and the language I use to describe dis/ability. I then provide

an overview of some of the foundational conceptualizations of dis/ability. I explore how these

frameworks inform my understanding of dis/ability.

2.2. Identity vs person first language

It is important to address what language we used when referring to people experiencing

dis/ability, illness, and neurodiversity (N. Brown & Leigh, 2020). This is especially true since our

language impacts those around us (L. Brown, 2022). Historically, those leading the debate on

what language we should use and those developing so called “dis/ability euphemisms” have

been non-dis/abled people (N. Brown & Leigh, 2020). Moreover, progress in the dis/ability
 Page 21

rights arena has historically favored the interests of dis/abled individuals with the most social

capital or community cultural wealth. Keeping this in mind, the following discussion centers the

voices of dis/abled, chronically ill, and neurodivergent scholars and activists.

Identity first language (e.g., “dis/abled”, “differently-abled”, “Deaf”, or “neurodiverse”)

emphasizes the role of society in producing dis/ablement (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). Identity

first language upholds dis/ability as a non-negative identity (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). It

centers the dis/ability, illness, or neurodiversity as an inherent part of an individual’s identity in

the same way one would refer to “Transgender”, “Muslim”, or “Japanese” people (L. Brown,

2022).

In contrast, person-first language (e.g., “people with dis/abilities” or “people with

different abilities”) emphasizes the value, humanity, or personhood of the individual (L. Brown,

2022). It recognizes an individual as a person instead of a condition (L. Brown, 2022). However,

many self-advocates in the Autistic and Deaf communities, for example, note that person first

language suggests that a person can be or would want to be separated from autism or

deafness, respectively (L. Brown, 2022). Opponents of person-first language note that it can be

demeaning as it can deny dis/ability as an identity (L. Brown, 2022). Some argue that person-

first language implies that the condition is unfortunate, detrimental, and that the person would

be better off if they were “typical” (L. Brown, 2022); however, there is a diversity of dis/abilities

people experience and each person experiences them differently. A person who has cancer, for

example, may consider the disease as something that is detrimental and entirely or mostly

separate from their sense of identity (L. Brown, 2022).

 Page 22

Just as it is essential to critically engage with one another to dismantle oppression, it is

essential to respect and center the language each dis/abled individual or individual with

dis/abilities chooses to describe themselves. Some of the participants in this study used person-

first and some used identity-first language to describe dis/ability. Throughout this dissertation, I

do my best to respect each participant's chosen language. I identify as both a dis/abled person

and a person with dis/abilities. For example, I describe myself as a person who has PTSD but

also as a neurodiverse, neuroatypical, and Mad person. Therefore, when discussing my own

thoughts and framings around dis/ability I use the two forms of language interchangeably to

represent both schools of thought.

2.3. Spelling dis/ability with a slash

There is a lot of contention around the language used to describe dis/ability. Some

Critical Dis/ability Activists and Scholars have started adapting the term “dis/ability”, spelled

“dis slash ability” (Annamma et al., 2013; Goodley et al., 2019). Disability spelled without the

slash, often implies a deficit or lack of ability to perform culturally defined, expected, and

valued tasks. Thus, even when authors use the spelling of the term without the slash, I use the

slashed spelling of dis/ability.

I spell dis/ability with a slash to acknowledge the validity and value of humans who have

dis/abilities. Further, I use this spelling to impute four assertions related to both disability and

ability. I use the term dis/ability “dis slash ability” in this framework to disrupt the deficit

perception of dis/ability. I do not believe a dis/ability is inherently good or bad. Dis/abled

 Page 23

people can bring diverse perspectives and creativity beyond that of our able-body-minded 13

peers. For example, people with ADHD have many skills that go beyond those of our

neurotypical counterparts. People with ADHD have increased creativity, conversational skills,

and spontaneity (Medical News Today, 2019). We have an increased ability to hyperfocus or

enter a flow state for extended periods of time (Medical News Today, 2019). That is we are able

to sustain long periods of highly focused attention to fully engross ourselves and fixate on

something that interests us (Medical News Today, 2019)—e.g., while writing a dissertation. I

like to think having PTSD helps me survive in dangerous situations. While the only benefit I can

think of for having my autoimmune diseases is potentially having increased empathy for others

suffering from chronic pain, I think finding that level of connection with others is pretty fucking

beautiful.

Spelling dis/ability with a slash does more than disrupt the deficit narrative of disability

and the normative ideal of ability. I also use this spelling to emphasize the socio-cultural co-

construction and co-dependence of disability and ability. I also use this spelling to recognize

disability and ability as constructions of ableism, oppression, and fear. Further, I use it to

appreciate the uniqueness of each individual’s intersectional/multidimensional experience and

perception of disability and ability.

13
Body-mind is a term used in Dis/ability Studies to refer to the “socio-politically constituted and material entity that
emerges through both structural (power- and violence-laden) contexts and also individual (specific) experience”
(Price, 2015, p. 271). It acknowledges that “mental and physical processes not only affect each other but also give
rise to each other—that is, because they tend to act as one, even though they are conventionally understood as
two” (Price, 2015, p. 269). The body-mind not only has physical and sensory functions but also the mental functions,
desire, and pain (Price, 2015). The term also recognizes that the instable disabled and abled identities of body-minds
are necessarily “obvious” or “obscure” but intermittently apparent—drawing meaning from transient “moments”
(McRuer, 2006, p. 157).
 Page 24

2.4. Foundational frameworks

Before I continue describing my conceptualization of dis/ability in STEM postsecondary

education, it is important to discuss prior frameworks in the field of dis/ability studies. Each of

these frameworks contribute to my conceptualization of dis/ability. By discussing these

dis/ability studies frameworks, I am able to offer social historical context regarding the way in

which dis/ability is treated within the U.S. education system.

Each of these frameworks, arise out of dis/ability rights activism and a field of

scholarship known as dis/ability studies. Dis/ability studies is an interdisciplinary area of study

examining the significance, nature, and consequences of dis/ability as a social, cultural, legal,

and political construct (Syracuse University School of Education, 2019). Dis/ability studies owes

its genesis to the dis/ability rights movement of the 1960s (Meekosha et al., 2013). Activists and

scholars such as Irving Zola (1972, 1982), Michael Oliver (1990), and Colin Barnes (1991) are

credited as some of the key leaders in the formation and evolution of the Dis/ability Studies

field. The field primarily draws upon the medical model and social models of dis/ability

(Goodley, 2011). However, as depicted in the timeline in Figure 2-A, the field has grown to also

include critical dis/ability studies, DisCrit, and dis/ability Justice, among other frameworks.
 Page 25

Figure 2-A: Conceptualization of Dis/ability Timeline

Figure 2-A descriptive text: At the bottom of the figure is a horizontal timeline. The

timeline starts without increments. At about one fourth of the way across the figure increments

of ten years are labeled on the timeline from 1960 to 2020. The Rehabilitation act of 1973 and

Americans with Dis/abilities Act of 1990 are denoted above the timeline with yellow triangles.

Models, theoretical frameworks, and activist movements are depicted in solid bands in shades

of indigo. The medical model of dis/ability takes up the entire span of the figure including a line

break to indicate the long history of the model predating 1960. Then the dis/ability rights

movement is shown above the medical model starting in the 1960s. Above it is the social model

of dis/ability (starting in the 1970s), the critical dis/ability framework (starting in the 1990s),

dis/ability studies in education (also starting in the 1990s), the dis/ability justice movement

(starting in 2008) and DisCrit (starting around 2012/2013).

In the following sections I discuss these conceptualizations of dis/ability. First, I discuss

the medical model of dis/ability and its relation to the accommodation frameworks we use in
 Page 26

Higher Education today. I then introduce the social model and subsequent critical dis/ability

theory.

2.5. The Medical model of dis/ability

Historically the education system has treated dis/abled students as a “problem” to be

solved (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). This sentiment aligns well with the classic theorization of

dis/ability, known as the medical model of dis/ability. The medical model frames dis/ability as

impairment, i.e., a psychological, embodied, or medicalized deficit or abnormality (Goodley et

al., 2019).

This dis/ability-as-impairment model remains a dominant ideology in public opinion,

professional practice, medical practice, and law in the U.S. today (Lizotte & Clifford Simplican,

2017). The most widely accepted and authoritative definition of dis/ability in the medical

community comes from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 1980 Internal Classification of

Impairments, Dis/abilities, and Handicaps guidelines (Barnes & Mercer, 2010). The WHO’s

guidelines embody the medical model of dis/ability. They require individuals to have diminished

functionality to be considered dis/abled. Specifically, the guidelines define dis/ability as a

"restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the

manner or within the range considered normal for a human being” (World Health Organization,

1980). The guidelines define impairment as “any loss or abnormality of psychological,

physiological, or anatomical structure or function” (World Health Organization, 1980). The legal

definition of dis/ability in the U.S. further exemplifies the medical model. Section 3 of the

Americans with Dis/abilities Act of 1990 and its 2008 amendment defines dis/ability, with
 Page 27

respect to an individual, as “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or

more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C)

being regarded as having such an impairment” (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 1990).

2.5.1. The logics of eugenics

The medical model of dis/ability is often used in accordance with eugenicist logic to

rationalize and uphold social hierarchy, prove inferiority of social groups, and justify inequity

(Hill Collins, 2019). While the term “eugenics” has vanished from scholarship and policy

discourse since World War II, the logic that underlines eugenics still persists (Hill Collins, 2019).

Eugenics projects position the theory of evolution within dominant conceptualizations of social

relations (Hill Collins, 2019). DuBois chronicled some of the attempts of scientists to align ability

with race and “prove” that Black people possessed limited intelligence and were therefore not

fully human (Annamma et al., 2013; DuBois, 1920). This pseudoscientific effort was used to

justify the slavery, segregation, oppression, and murder of Black and brown people (Annamma

et al., 2013; Valencia, 1997).

The legacy of eugenics beliefs around ability and other oppressed identities still shape

our society in the present day (Annamma et al., 2013). Eugenics logic can be found in

“population control” where dominating groups decide who is worthy of existing (Sins Invalid,

2019). This includes deciding who is born (genetic engineering), who is allowed to have kids

(forced sterilization and birth control), who has access to healthcare (Sins Invalid, 2019), who is

allowed or encouraged to die (Sins Invalid, 2019), and who receives access to different levels of

education (Annamma et al., 2013; Connor et al., 2016).

 Page 28

2.5.2. The medical model and U.S. education

To understand the experiences of postsecondary students, especially graduate students,

it is important to first contextualize how dis/ability is treated within the U.S. education system.

It is often left up to schools to determine who has a dis/ability, who receives access to

accommodations, who is denied a general education, and who is segregated from their peers

(Annamma et al., 2013; Connor et al., 2016). Under the medical model of dis/ability, medical

diagnoses (even those determined by educators) are considered to be objective. The medical-

educational-industrial complex empowers educators to “pathologize” students from a deficit

standpoint. Under the medical model, educators label students as “broken”, “disordered”,

and/or “dysfunctional” based on their “standard deviation” from what is considered

acceptable.

The current approach to working with dis/abled students in higher education is a result

of the litigation and legislation of the dis/ability rights movement (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021).

The predominant model of “reasonable accommodations'', as described in Chapter 1, is

grounded in the medical model of dis/ability as it singles out dis/abled students as “deficient”

(Liasidou, 2014). It paints dis/abled students as being in need of compensatory measures of

support to achieve standards of success (Liasidou, 2014).

2.6. The social model of dis/ability

While such standards of success are considered to be objective under the medical

model, the social model interrogates the ableism behind them (Liasidou, 2014). Unlike other

systems of oppression (e.g., sexism and racism), there is little consensus as to what constitutes
 Page 29

ableism (Kumari Campbell, 2009). Ableism is described in several foundational works of

scholarship, e.g., Hosking (2008), Wolbring (2008), Kumari Campbell (2008a, 2009), Auterman

(2011), Goodley (2014), and activist organizations, e.g., Sins Invalid (2019) and Stop Ableism

(2022). Synthesizing their definitions, I define ableism as the socio-political ideology and

practices in society that:

1) uphold the normative ideal of the “autonomous”, “perfectible”, “species-typical”

able-body/mind as being essential to being fully human;

2) measure an individual’s value, worth, and success against the standard of able-

body/mindedness; and

3) privilege the non-dis/abled while oppressing and excluding those who deviate from

this standard.

Ableism feeds on the normative individual’s fear of losing their embodied able-body-

minded status (Marks, 1999) through the inclusion of “others” who are perceived as “burdens”

rather than individuals (Goodley, 2011). It is perpetuated because of society's need to

guarantee the privilege of the non-dis/abled individual (Mintz, 2002). Critical dis/ability

scholarship notes that we, as members of our society, percieve ourselves through the dominant

cultural self (Kumari Campbell, 2008a, 2008b, 2009; Marks, 1999; Venn, 2001; Wendell, 1996).

Thus we invalidate and “other” ourselves against the binary cultural constructions used to

naturalize sameness and oppress those who do not embody the dominant self (Goodley, 2016).

The social model, attempting to bridge the gap between social sciences, the humanities,

and the dis/ability rights (Barnes & Mercer, 2010), quickly became a widespread epistemology

in the late 20th century and beyond (Oliver, 2004). The social model contests the traditionally
 Page 30

held notion that dis/ability is an impairment that must be “fixed” in order to conform with

normative values (Hillman & Quinn, 2021; Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017; Marks, 1997). This

dis/ability-as-oppression model is used in dis/ability studies to sever the causal link between

the body and the dis/ability (Goodley, 2013). The social model casts dis/ability as the

consequence of an excluding and oppressive environment rather than a physiological,

medicalized, or embodied deficit or dysfunction (Sztobryn-Giercuszkiewicz, 2017).

The social model acknowledges that we, as a society, have manufactured and enforced

systemic barriers, derogatory attitudes, and social exclusion for individuals who are different

from those in power (Marks, 1997). It also acknowledges that these manufactured restrictions

limit individuals with physical, sensory, intellectual, or psychological variations by expecting

people to conform to the normative values created by society in general (Marks, 1997). Further,

it acknowledges how disablism and stigmas present across cultures throughout history have

normalized the stereotyping, discrimination, condescension, blaming, and hate crimes against

people with dis/abilities (Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012; Silverman, 2016). Disablism refers to the

socio-cultural oppression of dis/abled people including the socially imposed restrictions and the

socially engendered undermining of the psycho-emotional well-being of dis/abled people

(Goodley, 2013).

2.6.1. The social model and U.S. education

The social model of dis/ability brings the ableist and eugenics logics in U.S. education to

light. It contests the objective assumptions about dis/ability and frames the U.S. education

system as being a source of dis/ablement. It implicates the U.S. education system in the
 Page 31

enforcement of “normalcy” (Valle & Connor, 2019). The social model criticizes educators for

considering deviant children as the “problem” (Valle & Connor, 2019). Moreover, it points to

the practice of segregating deviant children away from their “normal” peers as being part of the

problem (Valle & Connor, 2019).

Those supporting the social model point to the eugenics logic underlying the current

process of determining which students are dis/abled and which students are in “need” of

special education or accommodations (Romney, 2020). The ways in which dis/ability are

identified and measured is so subjective and racially biased that the State of California banned

intelligence quotient (IQ) testing on Black children (Romney, 2020). Despite policy changes such

as this, Black and brown students continue to be over-represented in special education,

especially in predominantly white-serving institutions (Connor et al., 2016).

Given unequal education, these students often do not develop the skills needed to

participate in gainful employment in our society. They have limited employment opportunities,

are often prevented from obtaining a high school diploma, and are often fed into the school-to-

prison pipeline (Valle & Connor, 2019). Illustrating these outcomes for dis/abled youth, a report

by RespectAbility USA notes that dis/abled children are twice as likely to be suspended from

school and 20 percent less likely than their peers to graduate high school (Laszlo Mizrahi et al.,

2016, p. v). The Bureau of Justice found that 40 percent of U.S. inmates reported at least one

dis/ability, while the U.S. Census found that only 20 percent of the U.S. population reported

having one or more dis/abilities (Laszlo Mizrahi et al., 2016, p. v). Additionally, more than 60

percent of inmates are reported to be functionally illiterate and 46 percent of homeless adults
 Page 32

living in shelters have psychiatric and/or substance abuse dis/abilities (Laszlo Mizrahi et al.,

2016, p. v).

Scholars note how these trends and the common perception that significant

compensatory measures are needed to support dis/abled students lead to some common

assumptions (Liasidou, 2014). Many people assume that dis/abled students do not exist in

institutions of higher education or have already developed the necessary strategies for success

(Beardmore et al., 2022; Fovet, 2021). However, neither assumption is true. While many

dis/abled people have limited access to higher education there is still a significant population of

dis/abled college students. Moreover, those experiencing dis/ability in higher education may

not have had the opportunity to develop strategies to work around the many barriers their

institution creates. Many people develop or are diagnosed with dis/abilities after completing

their K-12 education (Hosking, 2008). Our skewed perception of those around us may be

multifaceted. Since we are often unable to perceive less apparent dis/abilities without being

told that an individual has a dis/ability, there is often a lack of awareness of less apparent

dis/abilities and the people who experience them (Vergunst & Swartz, 2021).

2.6.2. Limitations of the social model

While critics recognize the importance of the social model in penetrating the disablism

of the medical model, they also highlight some of its limitations. The social model is grounded

in a materialist (Goodley, 2014; Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009) and somatophobic 14

(Goodley, 2013; Shakespeare, 2006) stance. The social model, embedded in capitalist ideals,

14
Somatophobic refers to the fear of the body (Goodley, 2013; Shakespeare, 2006).
 Page 33

seeks material solutions to increase the socio-political participation of individuals with

dis/abilities (Oliver, 2004). The social model is often used to obfuscate rather than celebrate

dis/ability as an identity (Goodley et al., 2019). Positioning dis/ability as oppression, it misses

the opportunity to uphold dis/ability as an identity that disrupts norms and the oppressive

values of society (Goodley et al., 2019).

At first, the social model offered some inclusion of the dis/abled community in small-

scale industries. It also brought recognition to dis/ability as a political phenomenon; however, it

did so by politicizing people with dis/abilities as “the marginalized other” (Goodley, 2013;

Thomas, 2007). As industrialization took hold, people with dis/abilities who had previously

worked in industry were deemed incapable of offering efficient and competitive labor. People

with dis/abilities lost their jobs, were deskilled, and were impoverished (Goodley, 2013).

2.7. Critical theories

Now that I have introduced some of the earlier more traditional theorizations of

dis/ability, I will move onto describing some of the theories formulated in response to their

limitations. These, so called, critical theories (Rush, 2004) build on prior frameworks of

emancipatory theory. While the medical and social models of dis/ability seek to understand and

explain the world as an end unto itself (Bridges, 2017a; Hosking, 2008), critical theory

emphasizes action research, societal transformation, and human emancipation (Sztobryn-

Giercuszkiewicz, 2017). Moreover, critical theories explain what is wrong in the current social

reality, identify the actors that can change it, provide precise standards for social debate, and

introduce practical targets for social change (Bohman, 2005). As such tenets directly align with
 Page 34

my goals for this dissertation, much of my conceptualization of dis/ability builds upon three

critical theories: critical dis/ability studies, DisCrit, and dis/ability justice.

2.8. Critical dis/ability theory

Critical dis/ability studies build on anti-racist frameworks to center the oppressed in

research while acknowledging dis/ability as both a result of oppression and impairment

(Erevelles, 2012; Goodley et al., 2019; McRuer, 2006). Critical dis/ability studies also build on

critical race theory in its emphasis on the multidimensional nature of dis/ability, as further

introduced in section 2.8.4. The field builds on queer theory 15 to challenge the assumptions of

non-dis/abled society (Erevelles, 2012; Goodley et al., 2019; McRuer, 2006). It builds on

Indigenous16 and feminist theory 17 to inviting dis/abled people as collaborators in designing and

producing knowledge in intellectual endeavors (Erevelles, 2012; Goodley et al., 2019; McRuer,

2006). Recognizing the lack of cross-movement solidarity (Goodley, 2013; Olkin, 2002), critical

dis/ability activists take a proactive stance in driving and influencing intersectional

engagements to dismantle systems of oppression (Goggin, 2008). Moreover, critical dis/ability

activists value diversity and treat equality as a right.

15Queer theory challenges the traditional assumptions and essentialist conceptualizations, especially that of the
“normal” binary gender and “normal” heterosexual desire (The Trustees of Indiana University, 2021b).

16Indigenous research practices emphasize consideration of cultural protocols, values, and behaviors in
methodological approaches (Pearson & Dickens, 2021; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999).

17 Feminist research emphasizes how relations and dominance between, predominantly, cis-men and cis-women
impact social behaviors. It attempts to build relationships with and avoid dominating research participants; let
participants help determine how their words will be expressed in publications, and invite participants to “talk back”
(from when they were silenced), and challenge the interviewer (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
 Page 35

2.8.1. Dis/ability as oppression and impairment

Critical dis/ability studies offer a way to understand the agency of people with

dis/abilities and the delimiting structures they face (Auterman, 2011). They offer a way to

understand society’s socially and economically enforced dis/ablement and delimitation of “non-

desirable others”, the politically legitimized subordination of dis/abled people, and the

exclusion and segregation of dis/abled people in education and labor (Auterman, 2011;

Sztobryn-Giercuszkiewicz, 2017). These studies implicate society in the cultural production of

both the anti-hegemonic and the dominant, tacit, accepted, and hegemonic privileging of the

“idealized normal” (Goodley, 2013; Shakespeare, 2013). They contextualize dis/ability as an

interconnection between the material and discursive (Goodley et al., 2019; Winance, 2016).

Critical dis/ability studies challenge the definition of dis/ability and who gets to define

and share the Story of dis/ability (Goodley et al., 2019). While the early models of dis/ability

forced complex and fluid concepts into binary categorizations, these studies recognize the same

constructs as nuanced spectrums. Building on queer theory, they challenge the binary nature of

defining dis/ability as either a socially constructed or medical identity (Auterman, 2011;

Shakespeare, 2006). Instead these studies recognize the pain, reality, and personal experience

of biomedical impairment as well as the social construction of dis/ability (Council of Europe,

2022; Hosking, 2008).

***Content warning: self-harm and suicidal ideation

Some critical dis/ability studies also recognize the aspect of desire in dis/ability. McRuer

and Wilkerson (2003,14) suggest dis/ability theorists “work to realize a world of multiple
 Page 36

(desiring and desirable) corporealities18 interacting in nonexploitative ways.” Price (2015)

describes desiring dis/ability as involving the affirmation of “the ways that [dis/ability] blurs the

boundaries between power and abjection. In such moments scarred skin is beauty; slurred

speech is music; the tapping of a cane is power.” Desired dis/ability is taking pride in the

dis/abled identity. It can be the celebration of dis/ability (Price, 2015). However, Price (2015)

also acknowledges that there are not only subjective descriptive differences between

conditions of dis/ability but also evaluative differences. Just as one person’s circumstance of

dis/ability may be joyful, another person’s may be intolerable (Price, 2015). Dis/ability is not

only pain and desire. It can involve the desire to be free from pain and the desire to experience

pain. It can be the unbearable pain that impels one to self-injure , consider suicide, or attempt

suicide (Price, 2015).

***End content warning: self-harm and suicidal ideation

In U.S. higher education, such studies acknowledge the cyclic nature of dis/ability,

nonnormative access needs, the accommodation process, and dis/ablement. The more taboo a

dis/ability is considered or unusual an access need is considered, the more exhausting the

emotional labor required to engage in the accommodation process becomes (N. Brown & Leigh,

2020; Mireles, 2020). This approach to dis/ability often results in a difficult choice between

different forms of oppression. Choosing to not disclose means conforming to ableist

expectations and not having access to the accommodations/support that could help meet a

person’s access needs (Pearson & Dickens, 2021). Alternately, choosing to disclose in the

18
The term “corporeal” refers to the body (Kumari Campbell, 2008b).
 Page 37

university setting may call an individual’s competency into question (Pearson & Dickens, 2021)

due to the socially reinforced stigma of dis/ability (Grimes et al., 2017, 2020; Sanchez-Pena et

al., 2021). Mingus (2011) notes in a keynote address that even when dis/abled individuals know

of and recognize that a particular service may be helpful they may not seek support because “it

can be very dangerous to identify as dis/abled when your survival depends on you denying it.”

Further complicating the decision to disclose, academics (students, staff, and faculty)

may not want to identify as part of a group they perceive to be excluded from their chosen

profession (Grimes, 2020). Pearson and Dickens (2021) describe how the ableist values

embedded in methodological texts, methods courses, and the research community dictate

what constitutes “good” research and who can be considered a researcher. Similarly, they note

how the monoculture of research erases alternative ways of thinking and engaging. Thus, some

dis/abled academics believe nondisclosure is necessary to protect them from being discredited

in their learning environment (Grimes, 2020). This is especially true of graduate students

(Jacklin, 2011).

2.8.2. Challenging non-dis/abled assumptions

Critical dis/ability studies assess the past conventions and aspirations in dis/ability

research, theory, and activism (Shildrick, 2009). While traditional theories often claim

researcher objectivity (Rush, 2004), critical theories acknowledge the interactive relationship

and perspectives of the researcher and the researched (Hosking, 2008; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Guided by the emancipatory mantra posited by the Dis/abled peoples’ movement “Nothing

about us, without us” critical dis/ability studies question the assumptions traditionally followed
 Page 38

by non-dis/abled society (Charlton & Davis, 2006; Sztobryn-Giercuszkiewicz, 2017). Critical

theory places the interaction of self and society and an individuals’ own interpretations, prior

experiences, and biases (carnal sociology) at the fore (Auterman, 2011; Goodley, 2013;

Michalko, 1999; Shakespeare, 2006). As such, critical dis/ability scholars attempt recognize

dis/abled people as arbiters of knowledge rather than merely treating dis/abled people as

objects of inquiry (Goodley, 2016; Pearson & Dickens, 2021; Sztobryn-Giercuszkiewicz, 2017).

In U.S. higher education, critical dis/ability scholars work to root out and contest the

assumptions of non dis/abled people. If an individual chooses to disclose their dis/ability during

the application or interview process for a job or grant opportunity, evaluators may consciously

or unconsciously assume the applicant is unable or less able to do rigorous or impactful work

(Swenor et al., 2020). This is particularly relevant given that many graduate students need to

simultaneously fill multiple roles as students and employees (often as teaching assistants or

research assistants) to fund their education. Peterson (2021) describes how decision-makers

may assume the applicant is unprepared, incapable, or a liability. This commonly held bias is

especially prevalent in academic departments, where a reference to less apparent dis/abilities

such as mental illness is considered a “kiss of death” in the graduate application process

(Appleby & Appleby, 2006). Alternatively, waiting to disclose a dis/ability until after being

awarded an opportunity can damage one’s relationship with their employer and peers

(Peterson, 2021). Employers may doubt a person’s credibility and trustworthiness (Peterson,

2021). Employers may even feel duped or taken advantage of if an employee waits to disclose

(Peterson, 2021). However, the next tenant of critical dis/ability theory offers multiple

pathways to overcome such assumptions.

 Page 39

2.8.3. Diversity as a value and equality as a right

Historically, civil rights have been extended to additional populations by arguing that the

differences between groups of people are no longer relevant (Hosking, 2008). Rather than

valuing diversity, this need to prove that the claimant is like the comparator and therefore

deserving of equal treatment has resulted in suppressing and obscuring diversity (Crenshaw,

1989; Hosking, 2008).

In terms of race, this has resulted in the practice of “color-evasiveness” 19 or the active

evasion and refusal to discuss race and recognize society’s construction of racial inequalities

(Frankenberg, 1993). This resistance to acknowledging inequities is common to all forms of

oppression. Contrasting this kind of resistance, critical dis/ability theory embraces differences

and appreciates their inevitability rather than ignoring them (Minow, 1990; Sztobryn-

Giercuszkiewicz, 2017). Further, critical dis/ability theory values diversity and recognizes the

rights of dis/abled people to equality, autonomy, independence, co-dependence, and full

participation in society (Hosking, 2008). Further still, it requires transformation and activism

with the goal of providing equal access to diverse populations of people (Sztobryn-

Giercuszkiewicz, 2017).

Unfortunately, requests for access in STEM academic programs are typically considered

a nuisance or afterthought and may be perceived as a sign of weakness (Reinholz & Ridgway,

19 I use the term “color-evasiveness” rather than “color blindness” for a few key reasons (even though they refer to

the same concept). The later frames blindness as a deficit and equates the phenomenon of not seeing with
purposeful ignorance (Connor et al., 2008). However, color-evasiveness acknowledges that both blind and sighted
people are holders and generators of knowledge (Stubblefield, 2005). Additionally, it recognizes the evasion of
knowledge as an active choice (Stubblefield, 2005).
 Page 40

2021). Such a dismissal of different access is not indicative of valuing diversity. Culturally

responsive pedagogies and Universal Design (as described in Chapter 8) offer opportunities to

embrace this tenant in STEM education. Such practices value dis/ability as a natural part of

human diversity and posit access to education as a right.

2.8.4. Dis/ability as intersectional

Critical dis/ability theory recognizes that dis/ability does not occur in isolation, as it is

qualified by one’s intersectional experience (Annamma et al., 2018; Hill Collins, 2019).

Crenshaw (1989, 1991) used intersectionality to critically explain the conceptual limitations of

single-issue legal analysis. Crenshaw critically (1989) examined how power structures and

interlocking forms of oppressions (e.g., race and sex) created unique barriers for multiply

disadvantaged groups. Crenshaw (1989) exposed how Black women could only be protected

against discrimination to the extent that their experiences coincided with Black men or white

women, yet Black women were not allowed to represent another class that may be singularly

disadvantaged (e.g., Black people or women).

Critical dis/ability theory recognizes the significance of power relations in producing

knowledge and positions intersectionality as an important source of epistemic agency (Hill

Collins, 2019). Thus, critical dis/ability studies recognize that each person interprets their

experiences, interactions, and actions through social context as determined by their

relationship with intersecting systems of power (Auterman, 2011). However, the term

intersectionality is sometimes co-opted in critical dis/ability studies and engineering education

literature as a term to denote identities rather than engage with power structures and
 Page 41

oppressive systems (Moore et al., 2021). While some scholars limit their focus to systems of

oppression, others also include systems that create privilege. The term multidimensionality is

sometimes used in place of intersectionality to highlight the fact that people with dis/abilities

differ in terms of the privilege and oppression afforded to them based on their multiple

interconnected identities (Hosking, 2008).

I draw upon Crenshaw (1989, 1991), Yosso (2005), Hosking (2008), Auterman (2011),

Annamma et al. (2018), Hill Collins (2019), Sins Invalid (2019), and Moore et al. (2021) to define

intersectionality/multidimensionality. For the purposes of this research, I define

intersectionality/multidimensionality as an analytical framework for understanding how the

interdependent systems of oppression and privilege interconnect, compound, conflict, and

overlap in a person’s experience afforded by the convergence and divergence of the individuals’

socio-cultural categorizations and social capital or community cultural wealth. A few examples

socio-cultural categorizations include dis/ability, gender, sex, age, size, race, sexuality, socio-

economic standing/class, family/marital/pregnancy status, nationality/immigration status,

education, literacy, language, incarceration, and religion. Whereas a few examples of systems

of oppression and privilege include racism, ableism, and transmisogyny20. Multidimensionality

recognizes the impact of multiple marginality—that is, “more ways in which one differs from

20
“Transmisogyny describes the intersecting oppressions and discriminations of transphobia and misogyny (Sojka
2017). Transphobia is the discrimination and oppression of trans people for their gender expression. Misogyny is the
hatred and devaluation of women and of femininity (Kacere 2018). Transmisogyny primarily affects trans women
and transfeminine people (Sojka 2017). However, it also affects trans and nonbinary folks who may be perceived as
feminine (Kacere 2018). Thus, transmisogyny works to portray trans women and transfeminine people as less than,
questions and devalues their gender identity, and sexualizes their femininity (Sojka 2017).” (UC Santa Barbara
Resource Center for Sexual & Gender Diversity, n.d.)
 Page 42

the “norm”, the more social interactions will be affected within multiple contexts” (Turner,

2002, p. 77).

In U.S. higher education, the ultimate decision regarding whether or not to provide an

accommodation to a student is often left up to the individual faculty members having power

over the student. Using an intersectional or multidimensional lens highlights how this can be

particularly problematic. For example, dis/abled graduate students of color face

disproportionate resistance from faculty to providing accommodations (Karpicz, 2020).

Dis/abled students of color must engage in higher levels of forced intimacy than their white

peers (Karpicz, 2020). Pearson and Dickens (2021) note, “this is traumatic and triggering,

especially when multiply oppressed individuals grow up knowing they are different, knowing

they are not normal, while being ‘forced’ (aka encouraged) to strive to be as normal as the

ideal.” Such multidimensional factors can significantly influence how individuals experience

dis/ability in their education.

2.8.5. Evolution of critical dis/ability theory

Kumari Campbell’s (e.g., 2008a, 2008b, 2009) and Wolbring’s (e.g., 2008; 2013) work

catalyzes a shift in critical dis/ability theory. These authors advocate for the simultaneous

theorization of the contesting and intersecting values of ableism and dominance that are used

justify forms of oppression (Goodley, 2013). For example, McRuer’s (2006) crip theory explores

how compulsory ableism and hetero-normativity merge to dominate social interaction and
 Page 43

relegate the dis/abled “other” to cripping21 positions (Goodley, 2011). Overboe (2007) and

Vidali (2010) extend trans-sectional engagement with ableism to explore what it would mean to

embody cripping—reappropriating the “deficient” body as appropriate. Similarly, authors such

as Menzies et al. (2013), Smith (2017), and Gillis (2015) reappropriate the term “Mad” in a

movement of scholarship that resists the idea that people who are diagnosed with “physical

impairments” or “psychiatric illnesses” necessarily need or want to be fixed (Gillis, 2015). Puar

(2017) further adds to critical dis/ability studies by theorizing debility as the failings of bodies to

work themselves out of oppression and meet the imperative ideology of ableism.

2.8.6. Limitations of critical dis/ability studies

Goodley (2014) notes however, that despite the progress made in Critical Dis/ability

Studies, the field still focuses on white, middle-class people from countries such as the U.S., the

United Kingdom, and Canada. However, Goodley et al. (2019) also note that critical dis/ability

studies are also expanding to respond to a variety of local and pan-national contexts. Goodley

cites Burman (2008), Grech (2009, 2015), and Tuhiwai Smith (1999) as contributing to

decolonizing critical dis/ability frameworks. Some of the themes in these works include the

centrality of religion; colonialism and genocide; the significance of households, informal

economies, and community networks; Indigenous collectivist practices; the impact of rapid

21
Cripping refers to the collective transformation (in ways that cannot necessarily be predicted in advance) of “the
substantive, material uses to which queer/disabled existence has been put by a system of compulsory able-
bodiedness, about insisting that such a system is never as good as it gets, and about imagining bodies and desires
otherwise” (McRuer, 2006, p. 32).
 Page 44

industrialization, migration, climate change, and supranational dis/ability policy (Goodley et al.,

2019).

2.9. DisCrit and tribal critical race theory

Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit) combines aspects of critical race theory (CRT)

and dis/ability studies (DS) to form a theoretical framework that incorporates a dual analysis of

race and ability (Annamma et al., 2018). DisCrit aims to expose and dismantle entrenched

inequities in education (Connor et al., 2016). DisCrit defines dis/ability as the social, historical,

and legal constructions of race and ability as well as the material and psychological impacts of

being labeled as raced and/or dis/abled (Annamma et al., 2013).

DisCrit upholds several of the tenets of critical dis/ability theory. Like the critical

dis/ability theory before it, DisCrit values multidimensional identities and troubles singular

notions of identity (Annamma et al., 2013). It requires transformation (Connor et al., 2016). It

recognizes how the legal and historical aspects of dis/ability and race have been used

separately and together to deny the rights of some citizens (Valle & Connor, 2019). Like critical

dis/ability theory, DisCrit emphasizes the social constructions of race and ability while

recognizing the material and psychological impacts of being labeled as raced or dis/abled

(Connor et al., 2016).

However, Connor, Ferri, and Annamma (2016) add additional tenants of dis/ability in

their framework. DisCrit adds a focus on the ways in which racism and ableism circulate

interdependently to uphold notions of normalcy in dis/ability studies (Annamma et al., 2013).

DisCrit also acknowledges that this is often done in neutralized and hidden ways. DisCrit moves
 Page 45

beyond critical dis/ability theory in its privileging of voices from marginalized populations that

are traditionally not acknowledged within research (Connor et al., 2016). DisCrit recognizes

Whiteness and Ability as Property or components of social capital. Additionally, DisCrit

acknowledges that gains for people labeled with dis/abilities have largely been made as the

result of interest convergence 22 of White, middle-class citizens (Connor et al., 2016).

As a citizen of a tribal nation, I also consider the tenants of tribal critical race theory

(tribal crit) in addition to those offered in DisCrit. Centering tribal crit in my way of knowing, I

must assert that both racism and colonization are endemic to U.S. society (Brayboy, 2005).

tribal crit positions U.S. policies toward Indigenous peoples as being rooted in imperialism,

white supremacy, and a desire for material gain (Brayboy, 2005). Conceptualizing dis/ability

within eugenics, racism, colonialism, ableism, and neoliberalism, I believe this assertion also

applies to U.S. policies toward dis/abled people. Moreover, I assert that all U.S. educational

research and practice must recognize role of the U.S. education in system in the goal of

assimilation (Brayboy, 2005).

Tribal crit also acknowledges that Indigenous peoples occupy a liminal space that

accounts for the political, legal, and racialized natures of our identities (Brayboy, 2005). Tribal

crit further upholds that Indigenous peoples have a desire to obtain and forge tribal

sovereignty, tribal autonomy, self-determination, and self-identification (Brayboy, 2005).

Further, tribal crit distinguishes that the concepts of culture, knowledge, and power take on

22
Connor et al. (2016) draw on the work of Derrick Bell (1980) to refer to interest convergence as the phenomenon
that occurs when the interests of an oppressed group will only be accommodated when the it converges with the
interests of the dominate group. Connor et al. (2016) provide an example of interest convergence when curb cuts
and sidewalks were marketed as being useful to parents with baby strollers and people pulling wheeled suitcases to
justify the expense of making sidewalks accessible for people in wheelchairs.
 Page 46

new meaning when examined through an Indigenous lens (Brayboy, 2005). Moreover, tribal crit

proclaims that tribal philosophies, beliefs, customs, traditions, and visions for the future are

central to understanding the lived realities of Indigenous peoples, but they also illustrate the

differences and adaptability among individuals and groups (Brayboy, 2005). I highlight these

tenants as I believe they have a significant impact on the unique yet interconnected, and

interdependent multidimensional experience, identity, epistemology of dis/abled Indigenous

academics.

As further described in Chapter 3, I center tribal crit in my research approach. Tribal crit

asserts that Stories are not separate from theory; they make up theory and are, therefore, real

and legitimate sources of data and ways of being (Brayboy, 2005). I use the Indigenous research

methodology of Story to share truth, while resisting the urge to compare the experience of one

population against another (Waterman, 2019). In so doing, I disrupt the common “counter-

narrative” format common in critical theory while acknowledging inequity (Waterman, 2019). It

acknowledges inequity without direct comparison against the dominant narrative (Waterman,

2019). Moreover, I shift the responsibility to the reader to continue exploring and learning from

the diversity of ways in which humans experience the world. I center tribal crit in the

connections I draw between theory and practice. Moreover, I center tribal crit in my invitation

to others to unite in our work toward social change in a variety of meaningful ways (Brayboy,

2005), as described in Chapter 8.

 Page 47

2.10. Dis/ability justice

The focus of dis/ability justice centers on the liberation of dis/abled people (with

particular attention to intersectionality) while working toward the liberation of all oppressed

people and contesting the notions of a normative ideal (Sins Invalid, 2019). Dis/ability justice is

a lot more than a theoretical framework for studying the experiences of dis/abled people.

Dis/ability justice emerged out of the conversations between Patty Berne, Mia Mingus, Stacey

Milbern, Eli Clare, and Sebastian Margret from 2005 to 2008. Some envision it as a “second

wave” of the dis/ability rights movement. It is a call for the collective liberation of all body-

minds, guided by a vision of what is yet-to-be (Sins Invalid, 2019). Dis/ability justice is a

commitment to unite with other movements working for justice and liberation through cross-

movement as well as cross-dis/ability solidarity (Sins Invalid, 2019).

The dis/ability justice movement defines dis/ability as “a word that links people of

common overlapping related experiences of oppression based in navigating a world designed

and defined by able-bodied people (Sins Invalid, 2019). Dis/abilities include temporary,

episodic, transient, chronic, and permanent variations in mental, emotional, and/or physical

functioning. Within this framework people whose body-minds have been willingly or non-

consensually medicalized and pathologized reclaim the term “dis/ability” from an empowered

perspective. The framework defines dis/abled people as those whose body-minds deviate from

society’s accepted norm. Examples of people who may or may not choose to identify as having

a dis/ability include those who are chronically ill, experience chronic pain, have environmental

injuries or chemical sensitivities; those who are Deaf, Blind, or neurodiverse; those who are
 Page 48

Crips, psych survivors, and Mad people; and those who are physically, developmentally, or

intellectually impaired (Sins Invalid, 2019).

It is the collective dream of creating a world in which all body-minds are valued and

known as beautiful (Sins Invalid, 2019). It contests the normative ideals of “competition”,

“workaholism”, “independence”, and “productivity.” Dis/ability justice acknowledges that these

capitalist ideals dehumanize all people and are especially harmful to people with dis/abled

body-minds who cannot or do not conform to such standards (Sins Invalid, 2019). It rejects

colonial notions of independence in its vision of an interdependent future. It aims to build an

interdependent community of people with dis/abilities by breaking down the isolation between

people who experience ableism (Sins Invalid, 2019). Moreover, it demands we dismantle

hierarchies in the dis/abled community, dis/abled activist movements, scholarship, and the

world (Andrews et al., 2019).

Dis/ability justice recognizes dis/abled people as whole people with their own life

experiences, thoughts, sensations, emotions, perceptions, and fantasies. Dis/ability justice

asserts that the interplay of intersectional identities must be considered to understand the

experiences of dis/abled people. The dis/ability justice framework demands that we lift up and

learn from the experiences of those who are most impacted by systems of oppression rather

than academics and experts. While dis/ability justice invites all body/minds to learn from the

experiences of those with dis/abilities, it also centers the leadership of those who are most

impacted (Sins Invalid, 2019).

Another thing that sets dis/ability justice apart from other movements is that it resists

the artificial sense of urgency. Instead, it urges us to prioritize taking care of ourselves and
 Page 49

those around us through self and collective care (Sins Invalid, 2019). It encourages us to move

at a pace we can sustain both individually and collectively (Sins Invalid, 2019).

Further, dis/ability justice introduces the concept of access needs. The dis/ability justice

framework posits that all people function differently. It highlights the diversity and fluidity in

which individuals explore ways of engaging, knowing, and doing things, especially in different

contexts and environments. Dis/ability justice affirms that all people have access needs. It

insists that each of us share in the collective responsibility of meeting these needs (Sins Invalid,

2019).

2.11. Comparing the theories

Now that I have described several theorizations of dis/ability, I summarize each in Table

2-A, below. The left most column represents various aspects that can complete the sentence

“dis/ability is.” The cells within the rows corresponding to each aspect of dis/ability include a

double hyphen (--) if the corresponding model does not include that aspect, a check mark () if

the model does include that aspect, or a continuation of the sentence if the model expands that

aspect.
 Page 50

Table 2-A: A comparison of dis/ability definitions

Dis/ability is… Medical Social model Critical DisCrit Dis/ability justice
model dis/ability
Impairment And a --   And the physical,
deficit material, and
needing to psychological pain
be fixed of impairment
Oppression --    
The impact of -- Disablism, & Disablism, Being labeled or Having a body-
disablement ableism, desire categorized as mind that deviates
& disablement raced or dis/abled from society’s
accepted norm as
upheld by
A product of the -- -- Ability and Racism, ablism, Ableism, racism,
codependent social, disability disability, (tribal capitalism,
political, historical, crit: nationality, productivity,
& legal constructs of sovereignty, sexism,
colonialism, transmisogyny,
imperialism, colonialism, police
consumerism, and violence, etc.
white supremacy)
Unique to the -- -- Of an individual Of a whole person Of a whole person
multidimensional whose identities, whose history and
experience and Tribal crit: lived experience cannot
perception reality, and ways be disaggregated
of knowing)
cannot be
disaggregated

Next, I compare some of the key tenets of the critical theories of dis/ability in Table 2-B,

below. The top row lists the names of the three critical theories being compared. The cells

within the rows corresponding to each topic include a double hyphen (--) if the corresponding

model does not include a tenet related to that topic, a check mark () if the model does include

that aspect, or text specifying how it related to the topic.

 Page 51

Table 2-B: A comparison of key tenets

Critical dis/ability DisCrit Dis/ability justice
Including dis/abled Gives voice to dis/abled Privileges the voices of those in Centers leadership of those
representation people marginalized populations that are most impacted
(especially dis/abled people of
color)
Valuing diversity  Values multidimensional Declares that all dis/abled
identities and recognizes people are valid and
historical gains in dis/ability valuable; demands
rights align with interests of dismantlement of dis/abled
those with the most capital or hierarchies; and commits to
property cross movement and cross-
dis/ability solidarity
Importance of language being (tribal crit: The concepts of --
language inherently political has culture, knowledge, and power
ideological implications take on new meaning when
influencing the examined through an
understanding and Indigenous lens)
attitude toward
dis/ability as well as the
status of people with
dis/abilities
Requires Free dominating society To challenge and change To resist capitalism and the
transformation/ from ableism; move systems through all forms of normative ideal; become
activism towards a society resistance including action, interdependent; meet the
without barriers; fully advocacy, and protest as well access needs of each
integrating all dis/abled as (tribal crit: to obtain and individual, and demand
people into a society to forge tribal sovereignty, tribal collective liberation for all
which dis/abled people autonomy, self-determination, (leaving no body-mind
will fully belong and self-identification) behind) while resisting a
false since of urgency
(instead promoting self and
collective care)

2.12. Mixing the theories together

I do not claim to fully represent any of these models of dis/ability in my

conceptualization of dis/ability. Rather, I represent my interpretation of these models and the

experiences shared by those I interviewed through the lens of my own multidimensionality. As

a dis/abled academic and citizen of a tribal nation, I uphold the tenants of critical dis/ability

justice, DisCrit, tribal crit, and dis/ability justice. When I think of these models and how they

influence my conceptualization of dis/ability they all bleed together. The influence of each is
 Page 52

dynamic and nebulous. The boundaries of each blur together as each model is interconnected.

They all contribute to how the participants collectively and individually experienced dis/ability.

This is because the spaces each individual, community, and nation occupy, the things we

experience, the people we interact with, the values each of us holds, as well as our perceptions

and interpretations impact how we know and experience dis/ability. Just as it is inconceivable

to isolate experiences to only one facet of one’s multidimensionality, I believe it is impossible to

perfectly represent dis/ability through any one model. The goal of this framework is to provide

a conceptualization of dis/ability so that I and other researchers might use it to explore how

people who have dis/abilities experience ableism and other systems of oppression in STEM

academic environments.

I imagine each model this framework builds upon as a pigment being mixed into a one-

gallon paint can, to create a particular shade of paint. Figure 2-B depicts the pigments being

initially added to the five-gallon bucket (representing the framework) from a bird’s eye or plan

view. While there are an infinite number of microscopic variations in the paint mixture, six

pigments stand out. This includes the medical model of dis/ability, social model of dis/ability,

dis/ability studies in education, critical dis/ability studies, dis/ability justice, and DisCrit.
 Page 53

Figure 2-B: Six theories as pigments being swirled together in a paint can

Then continuing to stir the paint, the medical model of dis/ability, social model of

dis/ability and dis/ability studies in education are diluted/absorbed into the mixture in Figure

2-C. This leaves critical dis/ability studies, disCrit/tribal crit, and dis/ability justice as the primary

influences in the paint mixture. While there are only three predominantly distinct pigments, I

imagine the other pigments as being incorporated into the three predominantly distinct

pigments that are left in the mixture.

Figure 2-C: Three theories as pigments being swirled together in a paint can
 Page 54

Figure 2-C descriptive text: Figure 2-C depicts a plan or birds eye view of an open paint

can. The can shows swirls of paint in four colors. Some of the swirls are red. These are labeled

“dis/ability justice.” Some of the swirls are dark purple. These are labeled “Critical dis/ability

studies.” Other swirls are light blue. These are labeled “DisCrit.” There is also a light purple

color swirled throughout representing the homogenizing of the pigments as they are mixed

together.

***Content warning: self-harm

I even fling in some specks of pigment based on my own ways of knowing and

experiencing. I recognize dis/ability as not only differences in functioning and the societal

oppression afforded to people with such differences but also differences in appearance.

Dis/ability justice acknowledges the temporary, episodic, transient, chronic, and permanent

nature of dis/ability (Sins Invalid, 2019). McRuer (2006) and Auterman (2011) acknowledge that

dis/ability can be consistently and intermittently readily apparent and not as readily apparent.

The symptoms of dis/abilities can be highly apparent sometimes (e.g., when I use a cane to help

shift my weight off my joints when my autoimmune disease is flaring) and less apparent at

other times (e.g., when I walk without a cane). The apparentness of a dis/ability may also

depend on context or the prior knowledge of the observer. For example, someone who has a

sports injury may perceive another person scars as being from a rock-climbing fall, whereas

someone who has supported a loved one with depression may perceive another person’s scars

as resulting from self-harm. I combine these theorizations of dis/ability to acknowledge both

the variations and fluidity of the apparentness of dis/ability.

***End content warning: self-harm

 Page 55

Finally, I continue incorporating these pigments or theories to create a particular shade

of paint. This shade of paint, as depicted in Figure 2-D, represents the contribution of all the

aforementioned models as a whole to this conceptual framework in. Recognizing that no

particular shade of paint will be a singular answer to the needs of all scholars, additional

pigments can always be added in to adjust the shade. While the previously incorporated shades

are indivisible, the container can be expanded. In other words, additional models can be added.

Additionally, the paint can be poured out of the one-gallon bucket into a five-gallon bucket—

meaning that the conceptual framework can be modified to fit the context of future studies.

Figure 2-D: The homogenized paint representing the framework

In summary, I draw upon a multitude of theoretical framings in my conceptualization of

dis/ability, namely critical dis/ability theory, dis/ability critical race theory (DisCrit)/tribal crit,

and dis/ability justice. My “paint bucket” theory of dis/ability defines dis/ability as:
 Page 56

1) temporary, episodic, transient, chronic, and permanent variations in mental,

emotional, and/or physical functioning or appearance that deviate from society’s

accepted norm.

2) the simultaneous

a. oppression of body/minds deviating from the norm

b. physical, material, and psychological

i. pain and desire

ii. impact and fear of having a body-mind that is labeled as deviating

from society’s accepted norm

3) existing within a diverse and often fluid spectrum of apparentness, sometimes being

readily apparent and sometimes not so readily apparent

4) a product of the co-dependent social, political, historical, & legal construction of

disability, ability, ableism, neoliberalism, racism, colonialism, imperialism, other

“isms”, and the goal of assimilation

5) unique to each individual’s holistic multidimensional experience, perspective,

history, lived reality, and ways of knowing (which cannot be disaggregated across

their individual identities)

My paint bucket theory combines the tenets of dis/ability critical theory, DisCrit/Tribal

crit, and dis/ability justice to uphold ten tenets. We must work interdependently to:

1) Recognize that the language we use to describe difference is important.

2) Disrupt and supplant the deficit narrative of disability and the normative ideal of

ability.
 Page 57

3) Recognize the role of our biases and multidimensionality in our own experiences,

language, and ways of knowing.

4) Uphold the sovereignty of each individual and community to choose the

language we use to describe our identity and access needs.

5) Shift our culture toward one what values diversity and recognizes dis/abled

people as valid and valuable.

6) Center the voices and leadership of those that are most impacted by oppression

in scholarship, practice, and activism.

7) Commit to cross movement as well as cross-dis/ability solidarity to dismantle

systems of oppression and the hierarchies within them as well as collectively

liberate all body-minds (leaving no body-mind behind).

8) Resist the artificial sense of urgency, instead promoting sustainability by focusing

on self and collective care.

Similar to critical dis/ability theory and tribal crit, this framework recognizes the

importance of the language we use to describe difference. It recognizes that our language is

inherently political in nature. It acknowledges that language has ideological implications on our

societal understanding and attitude toward dis/ability.

I spell dis/ability, dis slash ability, to disrupt the deficit narrative of disability and

supplant the normative ideal of ability. I am intentional in my spelling of dis/ability in this

framework. I agree with the tenets of critical dis/ability theory that language has the power to

positively influence or societal understanding of difference.

 Page 58

Similar to critical dis/ability theory, DisCrit, tribal crit, and dis/ability justice, this

framework acknowledges the influence of multidimensionality and bias on our ways of

knowing. It holds that multidimensional experiences cannot be disaggregated across identities.

Rather, it embraces the holistic, intricate, and interconnected nature of multidimensional

experience. I recognize how the concepts of culture, knowledge, and power take on a different

meaning through the lens of my own ways of knowing as a dis/abled, Mad, Crip, Queer,

Indigenous scholar, and activist, as opposed to other ways of knowing. For this reason, I

embrace my multidimensionality in my theorization of dis/ability. We must work together to

better understand the variety of multidimensional ways in which difference is experienced and

recognized.

The tenets of tribal crit uphold that Indigenous peoples have a desire to obtain and

forge tribal sovereignty, tribal autonomy, self-determination, and self-identification (Brayboy,

2005). This framework further recognizes the sovereignty of individuals and communities to

identify our access needs and ask that our access needs be met. This framework also upholds

the sovereignty of each individual and community to choose the language we use to describe

our identity.

Similar to critical dis/ability theory, DisCrit, and dis/ability justice, this framework values

diversity. It proclaims that all dis/abled people are valid and valuable. Similar to DisCrit and

dis/ability Justice, it recognizes the hierarchies within dis/ability movements. This framework

acknowledges the historical gains for dis/ability rights have aligned with the interests of those

with the most capital, power, or property. It echoes the demands of Dis/ability Justice that such

hierarchies must be dismantled.

 Page 59

Similar to DisCrit, this framework necessitates that we center the voices of those most

impacted by oppression. Moreover, this framework follows the lead of Dis/ability justice in

demanding that we center the leadership of the most impacted. We must do this not only in

dis/ability scholarship but also in dis/ability activism.

This framework also necessitates that we commit to cross movement solidarity in

addition to cross-dis/ability solidarity. Similar to critical dis/ability theory, it recognizes how

other social justice movements have often left dis/ability out of their scope. It recognizes the

efforts of dis/ability movements related to DisCrit and dis/ability justice in supporting other

social justice movements. This framework, similarly, calls for other social justice movements to

support the dis/ability justice movement. This is true for society at large, and within the higher

education and STEM education settings. Critical Disability studies demand transformation,

activism, and support for all forms of resistance. This framework similarly demands that we

work interdependently to dismantle all systems of oppression and the hierarchies within them

through all forms of resistance. Similar to Dis/ability Justice it demands that we work toward

the collective liberation of all body-minds (leaving no body-mind behind).

This framework echoes the Dis/ability justice movement by encouraging the education

community to resist the artificial sense of urgency. Instead, it encourages us to promote

movement sustainability. There is a lot of work to be done. We must focus on self and collective

care so that we can move at a pace that supports our own wellbeing.
 Page 60

CHAPTER 3. METHODS
The research conducted for this dissertation consisted of two phases. I used Harvey's

process in Phase 1 to broadly explore the experiences of dis/abled STEM graduate students as

depicted on the left side of Figure 3-A. Using a grounded theory approach, I relied on the

findings from Phase 1 to inform the investigation conducted in Phase 2. Specifically, I designed

Phase 2 to explore the experiences of dis/abled STEM graduate students regarding culture,

policy, and interpersonal interactions. I used narrative interviews and a post interview survey to

collect data in Phase 2, as depicted on the right side of Figure 3-A. After analyzing the results of

Phase 2, I constructed narratives. I presented these narratives as Stories within Chapters 5, 6,

and 7 to share the results from both phases.

Phase 2
Phase 1
Snowball sample
1≤n≤5
Convenience
Sample Interviews
nx1
Harvey’s interview
process
Coding Negotiated
(2 investigators) process

Interview rounds
Round 4: review
nx3 Substantiates
meaningful claims?

Coding Grounding No Yes = crystalize &

(1 investigator) write Stories

Figure 3-A: Phase 1 & 2 methods

Figure 3-A descriptive text: Figure 3-A depicts two hierarchical structures of nodes. The

structure on the left represents Phase 1 and the one on the right represents Phase 2. The Phase

1 hierarchy begins with a node labeled “Phase 1”. There are two nodes listed below the Phase 1
 Page 61

node. The nodes are labeled “convenience sample” and “Harvey’s interview process” stemming

from the Phase 1 label. Beneath Harvey’s process there are another two nodes. The first is

“Interview rounds n times 3” and the second is “Round 4: review.” Under the Interview rounds

node there is a node labeled “coding (1 investigator is listed).” There is an arrow from the

Coding node to the Harvey’s interview process node, indicating an iterative process. Under the

Round 4 node is a node labeled Grounding. There is an arrow from the grounding node of the

first structure to the top node of the second structure. This node is labeled “Phase 2.” There are

two nodes beneath it. One is labeled “Snowball sample one is less than or equal to n which is

less than or equal to five”. The other is labeled “Interviews n times 1.” The nodes below the

Interviews node include one labeled “Coding (2 investigators)” and another labeled “Negotiated

process”. Below the Negotiated process node is a node labeled with the question

“Substantiates meaningful claims?”. There are two nodes located below the node with the

question. One is labeled No. There is an arrow from this node the “Snowball sample” node,

indicating an iterative process. The other node is labeled “Yes equals crystalize and write

Stories.”

3.1. Study design

Both phases of this research were approved under the University of Colorado

Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol: 21-0217. The IRB approved Phase 1 on May 12, 2021.

The IRB approved the amendment for Phase 2 on January 18, 2022. This study took place during

the Covid 19 pandemic. Data collection concluded in Fall 2022.

 Page 62

I used an exploratory qualitative approach to carry out the research of this dissertation

study. The study consisted of two distinct phases of data collection. I strived to meet the eight

criteria of qualitative quality (Tracy, 2013). These criteria include (1) worth; (2) rigor; (3)

sincerity; (4) credibility; (5) significant contribution; (6) resonance; (7) ethics; and (8)

meaningful coherence. I bolded, defined, and discussed each of these criteria in the following

subsections below.

I used a narrative approach in this research. Narrative studies note something of a

person’s experience, either to themselves or to others in a story format (Solórzano & Yosso,

2002). The narrative approach Seeks to interpret, create meaning from, or generate theory

from the intact or stories of one or more participants or the constructed stories of their

experiences related to complex phenomena (Kellam et al., 2015; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).

Narrative approaches are appropriate when trying to interpret and contextually situate

complex phenomena (Kellam et al., 2015). They can also capture the complex, nuanced, and

distinct identities of participants (Kellam et al., 2015). Moreover, they are one of the methods

that has the potential to resonate deeply with the reader, a criteria of qualitative quality that

will be further expanded upon in this chapter (Kellam et al., 2015). Collective narratives

amalgamate participant stories into collective stories, rather than attribute a string of

experiences to any one participant (Jarrett & Light, 2019). I crafted the three narratives using
 Page 63

elements drawn from critical theory and Indigenous theory23. That is, I constructed each

narrative with elements of counter-narrative and “Story.”

The purpose of a counter-narrative (e.g., Williams & Ware, 2019) is to “give” agency to

people experiencing oppression by telling their stories from their perspective (Solórzano &

Yosso, 2002). Counter-narratives can be used as a powerful tool to disrupt majoritarian story

(Waterman, 2019). However, counter-narratives are often framed in opposition to the master

narrative in critical theory research (Waterman, 2019). Therefore counter-narratives can be

critiqued as being in comparison to whiteness and the dominant ways of being.

Another conceptualization of narratives that tell the experiences of people experiencing

oppression from their perspectives is “Story”, that is Story with a capital “S.” In Indigenous

research practices and Red pedagogy 24, Story is central to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and

ways of being (Waterman, 2019). Story has been in practice long before settler contact. It is still

in practice today. Story happens within an “alter-native” space with its own history and

discourse distinct from the settler colonial gaze (Grand, 2015; Waterman, 2019). “Alter-native”

Stories reclaim the inherent strength and power of a “people” (Grand, 2015; Waterman, 2019).

Lyons describes a people as a group of human beings united together by history, language,

Indigenous research practices emphasize consideration of Indigenous cultural protocols, values, and behaviors in
23

methodological approaches (Pearson & Dickens, 2021; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999).

24
A red pedagogy “necessitates: (1) the subjection of the processes of whitestream schooling to critical pedagogical
analyses; (2) the decoupling and dethinking of education from its Western, colonialist contexts; and (3) the
institution of Indigenous efforts to reground students and educators in traditional knowledge and teachings”
(Grande, 2015, p. 74). A red pedagogy demands that Indigenous ways of being and knowing cannot be reduced to
conditions of material expropriation (Grande, 2015). It necessitates the discerning of multiple forms of struggle in
relation to one another without losing sight of their mutual frictions, tensions, and incommensurabilities (Grande,
2015).
 Page 64

culture or some combination therein—a community joined in union for a common purpose: the

survival and flourishing of the people itself” (Lyons, 2000, p. 454).

As discussed in Chapter 2, many dis/abled 25 people are isolated from one another.

While there are Deaf and Autistic communities, there is not necessarily a distinct dis/abled

community. Recent movements such as the Crip theory 26 (McRuer, 2006), Mad studies27

(Menzies et al., 2013), and Dis/ability justice 28 (Sins Invalid, 2019) movements aim to change

this by building a dis/abled community that reclaims language, builds an interdependent

culture, and centers the valuation of people outside of the settler colonial, heteronormative,

white supremacist, ableist, gaze.

While graduate students may belong to a variety of peoples this dissertation argues that

they must navigate a space entrenched in the dominant ways of being. Thus, it is important to

study their experiences within the cultures and environments in which they exist and navigate

(including those beholden to and distinct from the dominant ways of being). I designed this

methodology from a standpoint of curiosity that was not necessarily intended to be in

opposition to or inherently separate from the “master” narrative. I chose this design, as further

25Dis/ability is defined in Chapter 2. For the purposes of participant recruitment, all that mattered was that the
participants identified as dis/abled or having a dis/ability (regardless of their definition of dis/ability). The
participants preferred to use a range of terminology to describe dis/ability, as is indicated in Chapter 4.

26
Crip theory is further discussed in Chapter 2. Crip theory reappropriates the “deficient” body-mind as appropriate
(Overboe, 2007; Vidali, 2010).

27
Mad studies are further discussed in Chapter 2. Mad studies resist the idea that “Mad”/“Insane” people (those
diagnosed with “psychiatric illness) necessarily want to be “fixed” (Gillis, 2015).

28The focus of dis/ability justice centers on the liberation of dis/abled people (with particular attention to
intersectionality) while working toward the liberation of all oppressed people and contesting the notions of a
normative ideal (Sins Invalid, 2019). The tenants of dis/ability justice are discussed in Chapter 2.
 Page 65

outlined in the sections below to optimize the meaningful coherence of this dissertation.

Meaningful coherence is the character of qualitative quality used to describe studies that “(a)

achieve their stated purpose; (b) accomplish what they espouse to be about; (c) use methods

and representation practices that partner well with espoused theories and paradigms; and (d)

attentively interconnect literature reviewed with research foci, methods, and findings" (Tracy,

2010, p. 848).

3.2. Participant pool

The inclusion criteria for both phases of the study included graduate students who

were: (1) enrolled in a STEM major at a University in the U.S., (2) had previously earned at least

one bachelor’s degree, and (3) who self-identified as having at least one less apparent or

nonapparent dis/ability. In the first phase of this research, the first criterion was limited to

students who were enrolled in a STEM graduate program during data collection (Summer

2021). After realizing how the first criterion would limit the participant pool, I adapted the

criterion for the second Phase. Phase 2 included individuals who were currently

(Spring/Summer 2022) or recently enrolled (Fall 2020 to Fall 2021). This change invited

individuals who graduated or who otherwise left their graduate studies before conferring a

degree to participate.

3.2.1. Recruitment

This study consisted of two phases of recruitment. Each phase used a different approach

to find and recruit study participants. Phase 1 used a convenience sample while Phase 2 used a

snowball sample. This approach also aided in supporting the rigor of the research design.
 Page 66

Qualitative rigor refers to the “care and effort taken to ensure that the research is carried out

in an appropriate manner” (Tracy, 2013, p. 231). Using two methods of recruitment provided an

opportunity for crystallization (a concept described in the Data analysis section of this Chapter).

During the first Phase, I recruited participants who had already disclosed their dis/ability

status to me. This is known as a convenience sample. Convenience sampling involves selecting

participants that are conveniently available or who are already known to meet the inclusion

criteria (Creswell, 2014).

After deciding to conduct a second phase of exploration, I sent a series of emails to my

colleagues and prior research participants inviting them to pass along information about the

study to their network or anyone they thought might be interested in participating in the study.

This approach is known as snowball sampling. A researcher engages in snowball sampling when

they invite those in their professional or personal networks (Creswell, 2014). I also included

this information on my personal website and advertised the study at the February 2022

American Society of Engineering Education CoNECD conference while I was growing my

professional network. This approach allowed me to recruit participants from a wider pool of

individuals. This was especially important since I might not have been able to recruit enough

participants to achieve my goals with a convenience sample.

3.2.2. Sample size

Another way I took care to ensure the research project was appropriately rigorous was

ensuring I collected enough data to support significant findings (Tracy, 2010). The original IRB

protocol allowed me to enroll between one and eight participants. The amended protocol,
 Page 67

which introduced Phase 2 into the study, allowed me to enroll a total of three to eight

participants in the study.

During Phase 1 I initially reached out to three individuals to find out if they would be

interested in participating in the study. Two individuals enrolled in the study. I conducted the

first round of interviews with the participants and then determined if additional participants

would add value to the study. As the massive depth and breadth of the data became apparent, I

ceased recruitment efforts. Limiting the sample size to two participants provided the flexibility

needed to engage in Harvey’s process as described below. That is, limiting the size of the

participant pool allowed the participants and I to iteratively co-create and analyze themes

during the limited window of time available.

Another aspect of qualitative rigor is practicing appropriate procedures to attain the

research objectives (Tracy, 2010). Thus, I grounded my rationale for choosing a sample size, n,

between one and five participants for Phase 2 in the goals and nature of this study. Since I

already possessed a wealth of salient data from Phase 1, I chose to include a maximum of five

participants in Phase 2. I did this because it is prudent to analyze and disseminate results in a

fresh and timely manner (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Additional data collection and analysis would

delay this process and reduce the amount of compensation I could provide participants

(discussed in section 3.3.1).

 Page 68

3.2.3. Saturation

The goal of this study was not to fully explore each phenomenon, therefore the

traditional notion of saturation 29 was not required to produce valid findings (Aguboshim, 2021).

As the population of individuals meeting the inclusion criteria of this study was not fully

understood and was likely to be small, saturation was also inappropriate for the context of this

study (Aguboshim, 2021; Weller et al., 2018). Instead, the secondary investigator, Angela

Bielefeldt (whose role is further explained in the data analysis section of this chapter), and I

reviewed the data after each interview. Once we determined the density of the data

substantiated meaningful or significant claims (defined in the data analysis section) we ceased

participant recruitment (Guest et al., 2020).

3.2.4. Generalizability

Saturation is typically used with the aim of generalizability. Tracy (2010) notes that

generalizability is generally unhelpful and not applicable to qualitative research. Often the

pursuit of a statistically significant sample size necessitates collapsing multiple intersecting

identities together in order to chase statistical significance (Slaton & Pawley, 2018). An example

might be a researcher collapsing the experiences of white cisgender women and Black

transgender nonbinary people together in order to gain a large enough sample size, n, of

“women” to substantiate the use of statistical tests (Slaton & Pawley, 2018). Whereas

qualitative research engages in-depth studies that produce contextually situated knowledge

29Traditionally, saturation is met when interviewing additional participants does not provide new properties or
spark new insights (Creswell, 2014).
 Page 69

that can never be seamlessly generalized to predict future practice (Tracy, 2010, 2013). As a

result, small-n studies such as those including one to three participants are commonly used in

qualitative research. This is especially true for narrative research (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000;

Creswell, 2013). Studies in higher education (Marshall & Case, 2010) and engineering education

(e.g., Beddoes, 2021; Kellam et al., 2015; Martin, 2015; Slaton & Pawley, 2018) are no

exception.

3.2.5. Resonance

Instead of pursuing generalizability, qualitative researchers pursue resonance by

choosing specifically revealing cases (also known as the force of example) of study. Tracey

refers to resonance as “the feature of the text that meaningfully reverberates and impacts an

audience” (Tracy, 2013, p. 238). Resonance can actually have more impact than statistical

generalizations (Tracy, 2013). This is because readers “feel as though they have made their own

useful applications rather than being told by the author what meanings to accept” (Tracy, 2013,

p. 239).

l pursued two types of qualitative resonance: transferability and naturalistic

generalization. I did this so that the results of this study might be valuable in other settings,

populations, contexts, or circumstances (Tracy, 2010, 2013). Transferability is achieved when

readers intuitively believe that research findings correspond to something significant in their

own world (Tracy, 2013). Naturalistic generalization is achieved when readers intuitively apply

the study’s findings to their own situations, develop a feeling of personal knowing, or

vicariously experience the findings (Tracy, 2010, 2013).

 Page 70

3.3. Ethical considerations

I carefully crafted the research protocol to comply with ethical principles. The ethics

criterion of qualitative quality includes three categories of ethics: relational ethics, procedural

ethics, and situational ethics. Relational ethics are the ethics of care taken when a researcher

who recognizes and values the mutual respect, dignity, and connectedness between the

researcher and participants as well as between researchers and the communities in which they

work (Tracy, 2013). Procedural ethics are universal edicts for all research such as “do no harm”;

“avoid deception”; “get informed consent”; and “ensure privacy and confidentiality” (Tracy,

2013, p. 243). Situational ethics refer to the “ethical issues that arise in specific context or

sample populations” (Tracy, 2013, p. 243). I paid particular attention to relational ethics and

situational ethics as I applied procedural ethics to my research design.

3.3.1. Relational ethics

The climate of higher education was built upon individualism. American education is

founded in the settler colonial perspective. Researchers often seek and educators often teach a

single “objective” “Truth.” Researchers “mine” communities for their own benefit. American

education is rooted in the idea that Indigenous cultural continuance has to be erased, devalued,

and replaced with that of the dominant culture and values. Relational ethics relate to

Indigenous ways of knowing as researchers following relational ethical principles position

themselves in their research (Waterman, 2019). Moreover, Indigenous methodologies value

relationships, respect, and responsibility to community (Waterman, 2019).

 Page 71

I apply relational ethics in multiple aspects of my research design. I recognize my

appreciation of the community in which I live and work through the acknowledgments section

of this dissertation. I acknowledge my relationship with the participants and some of the biases

I held in analyzing the data in my positionality statement later in this chapter.

I compensated participants with E-gift cards worth 60 USD for each interview cycle in

which they scheduled an interview. So long as participants scheduled an interview, I

compensated them regardless of whether or not they completed an interview. Additionally, I

compensated participants with E-gift cards worth 30 USD for any additional research

contributions. Additional research contributions included sharing published literature and

providing additional sources of data, e.g., diary entries, notes, or autobiographical sketches

(Martin, 2015). I chose a lump-sum style of compensation to prioritize the participant’s agency,

safety, and comfort by allowing them to share as little or as much as they want without any

pressure to obtain additional hourly compensation.

As discussed in the participation criteria above, students attending any U.S. institution

were invited to participate in the study. Participants were not required to disclose their

location, therefore the compensation rate was based on the state or territory with the highest

cost of living (Cohn, 2021). The hourly wage required for economic security in Hawaii was 27.48

USD in 2020 (Caron, 2021). This would be ~30 USD in 2022 assuming a 5% inflation rate. Since

the funding for participant compensation was awarded in between Phases, I based the

compensation on the duration of the interviews in Phase 1. All Phase 1 interviews lasted less

than an hour-and-a-half, so I decided to be conservative and base the compensation rate on

two hours.
 Page 72

3.3.2. Ensuring privacy and confidentiality

The privacy and confidentiality of the participants were of utmost importance in my

research design. Some are included in the methods I used to conduct interviews detailed in the

interview protocol and data collection sections below. I offered additional modes of protection

by expediently de-identifying and storing the data in a secure cloud server managed by the

University of Colorado Boulder. I also informed the participants in writing (through pre-

interview and post-interview emails and the consent form) as well as verbally during the

interviews that they could request any or all parts of their interview transcripts be redacted

(until data had been de-identified). Further, I carefully crafted the results in a way to prioritize

participant confidentiality, as described in the Presentation of results section below. Similarly, I

took care in describing the participant’s intersectionality/multi-positionality, as described in

Chapter 4.

3.3.3. Doing no harm

Of equal or higher priority in my research design was the comfort and well-being of the

participants. I designed the interviews to be participant-led. I set aside time at the beginning of

each interview to set boundaries for our conversation. Moreover, I informed the participants in

writing (through email and the consent form) and verbally during the interviews that they could

withdraw from the study at any time (before data had been fully de-identified). Similarly, I

informed the participants they could take a break or stop the interview at any time as well as

pause or stop the interview recording at any time. These steps are further described in the

Interview protocol section below.

 Page 73

3.3.4. Informed consent

I sent interview questions via email to participants before the interview so they could

get a “feel” for the interview. I did this both to avoid deception and allow the participant to

identify what they might not be comfortable talking about so we could set effective boundaries

at the beginning of interviews. I used the informed consent process to maintain the

participants' agency in the research. Since I used Harvey’s process in Phase 1, the Phase 1

participants had the agency to choose who (my research advisor, my mentor, and/or I) had

access to their data. Both Phase 2 participants elected to only provide consent to me to access

the video recordings, audio recordings, and transcripts before de-identification.

3.4. Data

As previously mentioned, practicing appropriate procedures to attain the research

objectives supports qualitative rigor. Thus, I collected multiple forms of data to support not

only the credibility (defined in the Data analysis section of this chapter) of the research but also

support my own access needs (defined in Chapter 2). Specifically, I chose data collection

methods such as recording to support my executive functioning, memory recall, and ability to

actively listen to and engage with the participants.

The data included the interview transcripts (produced by Zoom), video recordings, audio

recordings, and field notes from interviews. It included participant responses to an anonymous

post-interview Qualtrics survey (for Phase 2 only). The data also included additional research

contributions provided by some of the participants via email or via survey responses (e.g., links

to literature).
 Page 74

3.5. Data collection

There is no common assessment tools for data collection regarding the experiences of

individuals with dis/abilities in STEM fields (Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM

Federal Coordination in STEM Education Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021). My

foremost intention for this study was to respect the participant’s agency, safety, and comfort.

Therefore, I outline my chosen data collection process and rationale for this design below.

Phase 1 interviews were held between May 2021 and August 2021. Phase 1 employed

iterative rounds of data collection and data analysis. I grounded the methodological foundation

of Phase 1 in Harvey’s (2015) dialogic serial interview process and reliability checks. Harvey’s

process includes four rounds of interviews. Using Harvey’s process provided participants with

the opportunity to take control of their narratives throughout the research process (L. Harvey,

2015). Harvey’s process also optimized the participants’ agency over theorizing their own

experiences (L. Harvey, 2015).

During the first round of interviews in Phase 1, I asked each participant an open-ended

question “When you think about your experience as a graduate student with dis/abilities or

different abilities, what comes to mind?” I focused on exploring the participants' identities and

experiences during this round.

During the subsequent Phase 1 interview rounds, I provided the participants with

themes I had identified from the previous round of interviews. I asked the participants “What

are your thoughts on the preliminary themes?” The second round of interviews focused on

identifying themes and expanding inward. The third round focused on contextualizing themes

across participants and expanding outward. After the third round of interviews, I constructed
 Page 75

an initial narrative for each participant using thick descriptions of the participants’ Stories

(Tracy, 2013). Instead of participating in the fourth round of interviews, both participants opted

to read and comment on their narrative draft.

While the first phase included a broad yet in-depth investigation with multiple rounds of

interviews with each participant, Phase 2 included a more targeted investigation. Phase 2 built

upon the results of Phase 1. Phase 2 further explored three phenomena, identified in Phase 1,

with an additional set of participants.

I decided to forgo Harvey’s process in Phase 2 to reduce the amount of time participants

engaged in interviews. This was appropriate since I explored a broad research question in Phase

1 and more targeted research questions in Phase 2 (L. Harvey, 2015). Using different methods

also provided an additional opportunity for crystallization (defined in the Data analysis section

of this Chapter). I chose to conduct a single round of interviews using a narrative interviewing

approach with phenomenological elements to capture multivocality30. In addition to protecting

the time and energy of the participants and bolstering the credibility of the study, I chose to

reduce the overall duration of participant engagement to support my own emotional

bandwidth and well-being.

Phase 2 interviews occurred between February 2022 and June 2022. During the Phase 2

interviews, I invited the participants to share their experiences and perceptions related to one

30 Multivocality is a form of crystallization that relates to the analysis of data from a variety of participants'
perspectives. Multivocality highlights divergent or disagreeable standpoints while being aware of the researchers’
and participants’ varied subjectivity in terms of their intersectionality (S. Tracy, 2013).
 Page 76

to three prompts. I invited them to only answer questions they felt comfortable discussing.

These prompts included:

● During your graduate studies, how have you experienced interpersonal interactions

related to dis/ability and ability in your academic environment?

● During your graduate studies, how have you experienced the culture or climate of your

academic environment related to dis/ability and ability?

● During your graduate studies, how have you experienced formalized practices,

traditions, and policies as an individual with dis/ability and ability?

After completing all Phase 2 interviews, I sent out an anonymous post-interview survey

through Qualtrics in August 2022. The post-interview survey asked participants three questions.

It provided participants with a prompt, text entry boxes, and an opportunity to attach a file for

any questions answered in the affirmative. Please note that interview prompts are available

upon request.

3.5.1. Interview protocol

The foremost intention throughout both phases of the study was to respect the

participant’s agency, safety, and comfort by creating an open, participant-driven dialogue

(Lofland et al., 2006). I used open-ended broad questions to support this intention. I also

prioritized transparency throughout the data collection process. I provided the participants

with reminders in writing (in the consent form, in pre-interview and post-interview emails, as

well as in closed captioning during interviews). I also provided these reminders orally (during
 Page 77

interviews). These reminders included information about the research process, reminders

about participants’ rights, and that I only wanted them to share what they were comfortable

sharing. Moreover, I included several safety precautions in the design, as previously described

in the Ethical considerations subsection.

I included a semi-structured segment at the beginning of each interview. This time

provided an opportunity for the participants and me to build trust and explore their

experiences in depth. During this time, I checked in with participants, asked them if they have

questions, and invited them to set boundaries together.

Then I offer a prompt(s) (with potential probes in Phase 2) before allowing the interview

to evolve into a participant-led informal conversation. During this unstructured time, I primarily

engaged with the participant by making expressions to indicate I was following along with their

Stories. I occasionally offered probes or redirected the conversation to the interview questions.

However, I did my best to not interrupt the participant, as is appropriate in narrative research

(Kartch, 2023; Kellam et al., 2015).

3.5.2. Interview format

While holding interviews in person is preferable in sociological research (Lofland et al.,

2006), I chose to hold interviews virtually. Face-to-face interviews optimize the researcher’s

ability to make ethnographic observations and develop an intimate familiarity with the

participants (Lofland et al., 2006). However, hosting virtual interviews can provide additional

accessibility, security, and comfort to both the participants and researchers. Thus, I conducted

interviews via my University of Colorado Boulder Zoom account. Zoom allowed each person to
 Page 78

join the interview from a private location that was convenient for them. It also provided a

secure end-to-end encrypted connection. Zoom video interviews provided live closed

captioning, a smooth uninterrupted recording (even when one person’s connection was

unstable), and a rudimentary but editable transcription. Additionally, conducting the interviews

virtually, eliminated the need for travel—eliminating the risk of transmitting Covid 19.

3.5.3. Interview duration

I designed the interviews so that each participant could take as little or much time as

the participant desired. I scheduled two-hour windows of time for interviews with participants;

however, I built in large windows of time following each interview to allow flexibility. I let

participants know that I anticipated the interviews might last up to two hours; however, I

offered to conduct multiple shorter interviews if desired by the participant.

This flexibility allowed for each interview to take a polychronic31 approach to time. Such

an approach centers “queer temporality.” That is, it aims to liberate the participants and

researcher from normative temporality, monochronic time, or “straight time.” It encompasses

the anti-productive notion of “Crip” time (Cepeda, 2021). It embodies “Indian time” in that it

allows those involved to spend the time necessary as the occasion demands (Waterman, 2019).

As a disciplinary mechanism, straight time “endeavors to mold the dis/abled, queer, raced, and

gendered body and mind, much as neoliberal governmentality has become the rule in U.S.

higher education” (Cepeda, 2021). The dominant approach to participant-based research

31
Cultures oriented to polychronic time have flexible attitudes towards schedules and plans, prioritizing social
interaction, family, and people over tasks (Mraovic, 2021)
 Page 79

imposes a time limit to avoid inconveniencing the participants (Waterman, 2019); however, this

research takes a polychronic approach to time. It centers participant agency in their

Storytelling. It gives them the opportunity to share as much or as little as they desire about a

topic before moving on. It gives them uninterrupted space to organize, connect, and express

their thoughts in accordance with their own process.

The mean interview duration for both phases was one hour and 18 minutes. The two

Phase 1 participants each participated in four to five interviews. The five Phase 2 participants

each engaged in one interview.

Phase 1 participants contributed a significant amount of time (~ four hours) and energy

to the interview process. This time supported the rigor of this research. It provided an

opportunity for the participants and me to build trust and explore their experiences in depth;

however, spending this much time engaging in interviews might have exposed/triggered

participants to painful/traumatic memories. I tried to mitigate this risk in both phases through a

participant-driven interview approach.

3.6. Data analysis

I took great care to ensure the analysis was appropriately rigorous, by practicing

appropriate procedures to attain the research objectives (Tracy, 2010, 2013). I conducted my

initial analysis in each Phase by rewatching the video recordings while rereading the cleaned

transcripts. I describe my analysis methods below including my approach to obtaining

qualitative credibility in each Phase. Qualitative credibility refers to dependability,

 Page 80

trustworthiness, and expressing a reality that is plausible or seems true (Tracy, 2010).

Credibility is the qualitative cousin of quantitative validity.

Specifically, this research design relies on a method used in the pursuit of qualitative

credibility called crystallization. Crystallization is similar to a method used in quantitative and

qualitative research called triangulation. Triangulation is a realist method that uses contrasting

methods of data collection or multiple types of data seen through multiple lenses (Denzin,

1978). Similarly, the post-positivist method of crystallization reflects externalities and refracts

within while avoiding the realism associated with the term "triangulation.” Through

crystallization, researchers engage in “multiple types of data collection, at multiple points in

time, with multiple co-researchers, in order to construct a multi-faceted, more complicated,

and therefore more credible picture of the context” (Tracy, 2013, p. 237).

3.6.1. Harvey’s Process

After completing each Phase 1 interview I conducted an analysis. I used an iterative

coding process to identify themes in the participants’ experiences. The first step of this process

was cleaning the transcripts. As I cleaned the transcripts I broke them down into discrete blocks

of verbatim text, representing statements, and entered them into a spreadsheet. As I did this, I

flagged some of the statements that initially caught my interest. I then used open coding to

further identify and label statements using one or two word descriptors (Creswell, 2014;

Krippendorff, 2004; Saldaña, 2016). I then used axial coding to organize the descriptors into

themes and identify categories of phenomena (Creswell, 2014; Krippendorff, 2004; Saldaña,
 Page 81

2016). As I created categories, I balanced 32 them so they would represent both the similarities

and diversities of the participant voices.

Harvey’s process includes components of crystallization called member reflections.

Member checking is a strategy used to check qualitative validity that involves a researcher

taking findings back to the participants to determine if the participants feel the results are

accurate (Creswell, 2014). Whereas member reflection allows participants to share, question,

critique, and provide feedback as well as dialogue (Tracy, 2010). Harvey’s process goes beyond

simple forms of member reflection in that it invites the participants and interviewer to co-

develop themes in a nuanced and multifaceted analysis.

After creating these initial categories, I then engaged in Harvey’s form of member

reflection with the participants in each subsequent round of interviews. During these interviews

we analyzed, expanded upon, redefined, focused, and bounded the themes (Creswell, 2014;

Krippendorff, 2004; Saldaña, 2016). I then updated the spreadsheet with data from subsequent

interviews and performed another round of coding.

After the first three rounds of interviews were complete, I built a pool of meaning from

the participants’ experiences (Creswell, 2014; L. Harvey, 2015). This pool of meaning pertained

to both the participants' experiences as individuals and as a collective. I then transformed this

pool into a collection of events organized around distinct core phenomena through a process

known as selective coding (Creswell, 2014; Krippendorff, 2004; Saldaña, 2016). I built out the

events with thick descriptions using clean verbatim quotes. Thick description provides readers

32
Ensuring balance is a criterion of qualitative quality. It means choosing interviewees who have complementary
experiences as well as those who represent different perspectives (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
 Page 82

with context and lush material details about the subject (Tracy, 2010). I then presented the

participants with their narratives and collaborated with them to edit their narratives. After

completing the editing process, I updated the spreadsheet with the events from each narrative.

3.6.2. Grounded theory

I used the Phase 1 results to inform the theorization of phenomena, through a n

approach borrowing from grounded theory. I used this theorization to motivate the research

objectives for Phase 2. Grounded theory is a commonly used strategy in engineering education

research (Kellam et al., 2015) where researchers derive theory of a process, action, event, or

interaction grounded in the analytical induction of the participants’ perceptions (Creswell,

2014; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Although I present a variety of theories in dis/ability studies in

Chapter 2, I did not use them to guide the design of Phase 1 (Tracy, 2013). I had very limited

exposure to the theorizations and prior literature in dis/ability studies during Phase 1 (Tracy,

2013). In fact, it was a Phase 1 participant who first introduced me to the social model of

dis/ability. The use of a grounded theory approach was appropriate in this context because the

objective of Phase 1 was to discover theory from a previously unexplored area of knowledge

(Tracy, 2013).

3.6.3. Thematic analysis

After completing each Phase 2 interview, I cleaned the transcripts. I then identified

events within the Stories shared by the participants. Next, I watched the video recording of

each Phase 2 interview while reading the transcripts for each event to identify potential themes

and related events of interest within the participant’s intact story. Such a process is known as
 Page 83

thematic analysis (Creswell, 2013; Kellam et al., 2015). I then compared these themes and

related events of interest to those I had identified from the Stories shared by other participants.

A second investigator, Angela Bielefeldt, performed a thematic analysis for the Phase 2

interviews separately.

3.6.4. Negotiated process

The negotiated approach requires two or more researchers to conduct independent

coding and then actively discuss their respective codes to arrive at a final version of the coding

(Garrison et al., 2006). The aim of the negotiated approach is to achieve inter-coder agreement.

Inter-coder agreement in a negotiated process is met when the coders are able to reconcile

through discussion most if not all coding discrepancies they had for the same unit of data (J. L.

Campbell et al., 2013). I included three rounds of negotiated process in the constructed

narrative analysis for this research.

Round 1: The second investigator and I met after each Phase 2 interview to discuss the

potential coding of themes. After discussing our respective coding, we discussed the potential

of the events we had coded to each theme to build a narrative of potentially resonant (affecting

the audience), multivocal Stories with thick (lush, vivid, and descriptive) descriptions. We

discussed whether such Stories substantiated significant (scholarly, original, and impactful)

claims regarding each of the original research questions. Once we agreed that the Stories could

substantiated significant claims, we concluded Phase 2 interviews.

Round 2: After we concluded the interviews, a third investigator, Robyn Sandekian,

independently performed a thematic analysis of Phase 2 interviews. Since the second

 Page 84

investigator and I had already discussed themes, the third investigator was able to provide

another independent perspective. We discussed high-level themes until we reached an

agreement.

3.6.5. Constructed narrative analysis

I then constructed early versions of the Stories shared in chapters 5, 6, and 7. That is, I

identified and arranged events of interest from the Phase 1 and 2 data to construct coherent

Stories (Kellam et al., 2015). I then analyzed the Stories to explain the uncovered events (Kellam

et al., 2015). The second investigator then reviewed the constructed Stories and identified

events to add or remove from the Stories. We then met for a third round of negotiated process.

The second investigator and I then discussed the events until we arrived at a consensus on

which to include in each Story.

3.7. Presentation of results

I constructed the Stories shared in chapters 5, 6, and 7 in the form of collective

narratives. That is, I amalgamated the events experienced by multiple participants into a

singular composite form. I did this to highlight both the collective meaning and aspects of

variation in the participants’ experiences.

Using collective narratives is an established technique in engineering education research

(e.g., Jarrett & Light, 2019; Kellam et al., 2015). Even though each narrative is composed of the

participant’s experiences, they are fictional in that the Stories they share did not occur to any

one person.
 Page 85

I chose this means of presentation because it is appropriate for representing a range of

conceptions of phenomena and it adds a layer of protection to the participants’ confidentiality

(Jarrett & Light, 2019; Morton & Parsons, 2018). This is particularly important in a study with a

small sample size. It prevents the reader from attributing a list of experiences or attributes to a

single participant.

3.7.1. Representing intersectionality

It is important to note that the participants did discuss their experiences in relation to

multiple concurrent intersectional identities (e.g., dis/ability, gender, and race).

Intersectionality is defined in Chapter 2. However, some of the participants asked for such

descriptions to be omitted from subsequent publications as it might be identifiable.

For example, I am a dis/abled assigned female at birth (AFAB) person. Smith-Jonson

(2022) criticizes the body of research on gendered disparities in dis/ability, as it almost

exclusively pertains to cis-gendered people; however, for the sake of this thought experiment,

let us assume that the percentage of dis/abled AFAB people roughly aligns with that of

dis/abled women. Assuming I am within the 70% of graduate students who are under the age of

40 (Dencer-Brown, 2022), I would be one of around 17.9% AFAB people with a dis/ability

(Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). If you also knew I was transgender and/or

nonbinary and (incorrectly) assumed I was under the age of 30, you would know that I was one

of around 5.1% of young adults in the U.S. (A. Brown, 2022) and one of around 27% of dis/abled

transgender and/or nonbinary adults. Let us say I also told you I am a tribal citizen. Less than

1% of graduate students are Native American (Bryant Jr., 2021). Most of these identities are
 Page 86

underrepresented in STEM education and graduate education. If I were a participant in a study

and these three aspects of my identity were correlated in a publication, someone might be able

to identify me.

Thus, I take a cautionary approach in my writing. I generally avoid including details

about more than two non-dominant identities. The participant criteria included all genders and

sexes; however, as indicated in Chapter 4, the participants happened to either identify as

dis/abled women and/or dis/abled genderqueer/nonbinary individuals who were assigned

female at birth (AFAB). Thus, I only include information about additional identities within the

narratives when given explicit permission to share those details. When multiple identities are

featured in a narrative, I take care to only amalgamate quotes of participants with shared

identities.

For example, Chapter 5 Excerpt 7 only includes quotes from participants who identified

as white and Hispanic. The participants’ whose Stories I used in this amalgamation had other

salient identities that likely contributed to their feelings of alienation. One or all of the

participants whose Stories were amalgamated into this excerpt may have mentioned the

influence of other forms of oppression (targeting various aspects of their identity). However, if

this were the case, I chose to omit those details from the excerpt. I chose this approach to try

to balance the participants’ confidentiality and the qualitative sincerity of the results.

3.7.2. Pseudonyms and pronouns

At the request of at least one participant, I did not use the names of the participants nor

allot pseudonyms to individual participants. The participants each used she and/or they
 Page 87

pronouns. For this reason, I use either she or they pronouns to refer to the amalgamated

participant of each narrative.

To further protect the aprticipants’ confidentiality, I often amalgamated the individuals

they interacted with. For example, I may have amalgamated one participant’s research advisor

with another participant’s research advisor. I used pseudonyms to describe the people the

particiapnts interacted with. To add a layer of confidentiality, I did not necessarily use the

pronouns the participant used to describe someone. I even created some of the amalgamated

individuals from people who used different gender pronouns. The participants used she and he

pronouns to describe the people they interacted with. Therefore, I used she or he pronouns to

describe the amalgamated people they interacted with.

3.7.3. Multiple methods of presentation

While Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 present results in the format of collective

narratives, each does so in a different way. I attempted to balance sincerity (as described

further below) and confidentiality in the presentation of results. That is I attempted to balance

realness, resonance, and confidentiality. Thus, I followed the example of Kellam et al. (2015) to

explore three different approaches to narrative construction. I summarize each approach in

Table 3-A. Future research is needed to understand the implications of each approach.
 Page 88

Table 3-A: Summary of chapter presentation methods

Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7
Narrator voice Researcher Researcher Participants
Narrative construction exclusively clean Mostly clean verbatim Direct, indirect, edited,
verbatim quotes (high quotes with some crafted and spliced together
narrative reliability) elements quotes with crafted
words
Realness High Medium-High Medium
Story cohesion Low Medium High
Contextually situated Low High High
Potential resonance Low Medium High
Representation 1 participant per 1-3 participants per event 1-7 participants per Story
paragraph and event
Confidentiality Medium Medium-High High

The safety and comfort of the participants were two of my highest concerns in designing

this research. I have already described some of the ways in which I aimed to protect the

confidentiality of the participants in this Chapter. However, my attempt to protect their

confidentiality through the amalgamation of their experinces, came at the cost of qualitative

sincerity. Qualitative sincerity is a measure of qualitative value that is achieved when research

is genuine, vulnerable, transparent, and self-reflexive (Lofland et al., 2006; Tracy, 2010).

Even though I amalgamated the participants’ experiences, I did my best to do so in a

way that was genuine. Realness centers the knowledge and experience of those experiencing

the phenomenon being studied; hence, real studies portray real people, real events, and real

experiences (Creswell, 2014; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This can be done by presenting the

participants’ first-hand experiences in the participants’ own words (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Thus,

I drafted each Story in the first-person perspective of the singular amalgamated entity.

I also engaged in practices to promote transparency and vulnerability. I presented my

motivations to conduct this research in Chapter 1. I will also discuss my positionality within this
 Page 89

chapter. I described my positionality in a subsequent subsection of this Chapter. I have also

previously provided autoethnographic elements of my own Story in Beardmore (2022a, 2022b).

Centering Indigenous ways of knowing, I also used the self-reflexive language (e.g., first

person) of post-positivist research in my discussion to remind the reader of my presence and

influence in the research (Tracy, 2013). Self-reflexivity is the honest and authentic awareness

of one's own identity, biases, and research approach, and an attitude of respect for

participants, audience members, and other research partners (Tracy, 2010). Others have

defined reflexivity as the examination of how one’s own beliefs, judgments, and practices

related to one’s intersectionality have influenced the research (Billo & Hiemstra, 2013).

Post-modernist realist (Tracy, 2010) and Indigenous and ways of knowing acknowledge a

researcher’s worldview as “the lens through which research is conceived, executed, analyzed,

and reported” (Waterman, 2019, p. 66). In contrast, western colonial methodologies “stand

aside, apart, and attempt to create distance, as if the researcher could remove part of their

brain and a life-time of socialization, to analyze, to dissect, and to objectively interpret data”

(Waterman, 2019, p. 65). Indeed, the notion of “objective” research is routed in ideologies of

settler colonialism that oppress, marginalize, and impose binaries and external definitions

(Waterman, 2019).

3.7.4. Chapter 5

I organize the results of Chapter 5 into ten excerpts and interweave them into my

discussion. Each excerpt may or may not be representative of the experiences of multiple

participants. Within an excerpt, each paragraph includes clean verbatim quotes from only one
 Page 90

participant. I use the discussion to present (lead into) and follow (flow out from) clean verbatim

quotes. The discussion constructs a Story from a series of events. Each excerpt does not tell a

full Story. Each excerpt contributes a “snapshot” of a narrative. Chapter 5 sews the excerpts

together in a piecemeal fashion to create a narrative. While the excerpts tell parts of a Story,

the narrative is disjointed. That is, the narrative is missing some of the essential elements of a

Story such as a clear plot, conflict, and resolution. I attempt to present each excerpt in time

with the themes I discuss; however multiple themes are represented in some of the excerpts.

For this reason, I make in-text references to each excerpt that represents a theme within my

discussion. I number and title each excerpt for the reader's convenience. Chapter 5 sacrifices

resonance and confidentiality for realness.

3.7.5. Chapter 6

I interweave the results of Chapter 6 within the chapter's discussion. The body of quotes

included in this chapter form a single collective narrative. I present the narrative as a series of

block quotes interwoven within the discussion. I offset the segments of narrative from the

discussion with left and right full paragraph indentation. Most but not all paragraphs within the

narrative represent the words of a single participant. I prioritized the use of clean verbatim

quotes in the construction of the narrative. However, I also paraphrased some of the

participants’ statements for consciousness, clarity, and Story cohesion. Each event, or block

quote, within the narrative may represent the experience of up to three participants. The

events are roughly tied together to paint a picture that represents the experience of multiple
 Page 91

participants. Chapter 6 is a middle ground in that it aims to more evenly balance resonance,

realness, and confidentiality.

3.7.6. Chapter 7

I tell the Stories in Chapter 7 from the perspective of the participants. Attempting to

capture the diversity of the participant’s experiences, I organize the results of Chapter 7 into

four amalgamated Stories. Each Story and event within the Story represent the experiences of

multiple participants. I first created these Stories by organizing clean verbatim quotes around

different combinations of supportive, controlling, and violent interactions with people in

power. I then arranged these quotes to tell Stories and adapted them to follow standard writing

conventions. For example, I updated the verb tense within the quotes. I also paraphrased a few

of the quotes to improve readability and narrative flow. Each Story encompasses multiple

themes regarding violence, control, and support. Thus, I separate the results from my

discussion in Chapter 7. While discussing each theme, I use in-text call backs to reference each

of the Stories related to the theme. I number and title each Story for the reader's convenience.

Chapter 7 sacrifices realness for confidentiality and potential resonance.

3.8. Research Questions

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore and describe the experiences of STEM

graduate students, with less apparent or nonapparent dis/abilities, in their graduate academic

journey. Specifically, I originally structured my dissertation research around the following three

research questions:
 Page 92

Research Question 1: How are STEM graduate students with less apparent or

nonapparent dis/abilities experiencing interpersonal interactions they encounter as

they navigate the academic environment?

Research Question 2: How are STEM graduate students with less apparent or

nonapparent dis/abilities experiencing the culture and climate of their academic

environment?

Research Question 3: How are STEM graduate students with less apparent or

nonapparent dis/abilities experiencing dis/ability in the institutional structure of their

academic environment?

The participants in this study are multidimensional beings, as described in Chapter 2.

This study aims to understand their experiences with inclusion, privilege, and oppression as

intersectional people with dis/abilities. After collecting and analyzing the data, I prioritized

three topics for immediate dissemination. I chose them based on their novelty and potential for

practical impact. Tracey (2013) denotes that worthy topics of research are “relevant, timely,

significant, or evocative.” This topic is worthy as it focuses on an overlooked, significant, and

evocative field of research that would make a timely contribution to the body of knowledge. I

describe the purpose and research questions for each chapter below.

3.8.1. Chapter 5

It was immediately and abundantly clear that all the participants felt socially isolated by

entering and persisting in their academic environments. The participants had not merely

chosen to self-isolate; rather, social isolation was often imposed upon them. However,
 Page 93

sometimes participants chose to self-isolate as a response to the larger system of oppression

that acted upon them. After I analyzed data around socially isolating experiences, I chose to

further explore the data using the lens of alienation. Conceptualizing students as workers,

academic alienation, as further discussed in Chapter 5, can be defined as the “emotional or

cognitive separation from different contextual aspects of education like the procedure of

learning and education, the atmosphere of the university, lecturers, and other students as well

as the sense of separation from their scientific products” (Ahmadi et al., 2021, p. 196). Thus, I

apply Dean’s (1961) conceptualization of alienation to explore the experiences of the

participants in Chapter 5. The purpose of Chapter 5 is to identify if and how dis/abled STEM

graduate students experience three dimensions of alienation (powerlessness, normlessness,

and social isolation). The specific research questions addressed in Chapter 5 are as follows:

1. To what extent are facets of alienation (powerlessness, normlessness, and social

isolation) evident in the experiences of dis/abled STEM graduate students?

2. If and how are dis/abled graduate students experiencing and being impacted by

alienation in the STEM academic environment?

3. If and how do the experiences of powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation

interact in the experiences of dis/abled graduate STEM students?

3.8.2. Chapter 6

It was immediately and abundantly clear that all the participants felt pressured to be

productive. Conceptualizing students as workers, academia embodies a culture of productivity.

Chapter 6 explores the experiences of dis/abled STEM students who cannot and/or will not
 Page 94

conform to the dominant cultural image of “productivity” and the “ideal academic.” Chapter 6

builds upon McIlwee & Robinson’s theoretical framework of engineering culture by analyzing

the experiences of the participants through a lens critical of neoliberalism and ableism. The

purpose of Chapter 6 is to explore the experiences of dis/abled STEM graduate students

navigating the culture of their disciplines through a neoliberal-critical, ableism-critical lens. This

chapter explores the experiences of dis/abled STEM students who cannot or will not conform to

the dominant cultural image of “productivity” and the “ideal academic.” Chapter 6 aims to

interrogate the complexities of interlocking systems of oppression within STEM academic

cultures and elucidate barriers to students who may not fit the image of the “ideal academic.”

The specific research questions addressed in Chapter 6 are as follows:

1. To what extent is a culture of productivity evident in how dis/abled STEM graduate

students describe the culture of their academic program, discipline, or department?

2. What themes related to a culture of productivity can be discerned from the experiences

of dis/abled STEM graduate students?

3. If and how are dis/abled graduate students experiencing and being impacted by a

culture of productivity in the STEM academic environment?

3.8.3. Chapter 7

One of the most prevalent themes I noticed, even as I conducted interviews, was the

relationship between the participants and their faculty research advisors (sometimes referred

to as Principal Investigators or PIs 33). The participants attributed, in large part, their persistence

33
I do not use this acronym in this Chapter, as acronyms can decrease the accessibility of writing (CAST, 2020)
 Page 95

in their graduate education, or lack thereof, to their faculty advisors. These relationships had a

profound impact on participants. While symptomatic of systemic systems of oppression,

interpersonal relationships offer individuals an opportunity to enact substantial change with a

relatively low barrier to entry. Thus, the purpose of Chapter 7 is to explore the experiences of

dis/abled STEM graduate students related to the interpersonal relationships and power

dynamics they have with the academics who have power over them. The specific research

questions addressed in Chapter 7 are as follows:

1. How are STEM graduate students with less apparent dis/abilities experiencing dis/ability

in the interpersonal interactions they encounter as they navigate the academic

environment?

2. How are STEM graduate students with dis/abilities impacted by the interpersonal

relationships and power dynamics they have with the academics who have power over

them?

3.9. Author positionality

“If all of our observations as researchers are values-laden, that means we are not (and

cannot) be neutral and objective” (Baglieri et al., 2011, p. 274). I provided an example of how

my identity influenced my understanding of the risk to participant identities and how this

perspective influenced my research design. Similarly, my desire to connect with my Indigenous

heritage and explore my own queerness influenced my polychronic approach in the timing of

interviews, the limited structuring of my interview protocol, and self-reflexivity throughout the

research process.
 Page 96

My biases and prior intersectional experiences influenced what meaning and value I

assigned to data as I collected and analyzed it. As a dis/abled graduate student interviewing

other dis/abled graduate students, I found myself comparing my own identity and experience

to those of the participants, even as I interviewed them. However, I do not believe this was

inherently negative. I believe my insider helped me build trust with the participants as well as

prioritize their comfort in the research protocol and telling of their Stories (Bridges, 2017b). My

insider identity also aligned with the tenets of the Nothing About us Without us Movement, as

described in Chapter 2.

My experiences shaped the way I responded to participants as they shared their Stories.

For example, many of my identities may not be immediately noticed by others. I am queer,

nonbinary, and transgender yet am often perceived as a heterosexual cis woman. I am biracial

yet “white-passing.” This is one of the reasons I chose to share Chapter 5 Excerpt 7: It doesn't

matter; you are white passing. I attempted to affirm the participants’ experience and in so

doing encouraged them to provide additional remarks about those experiences. I wonder how

much I sought my own validation in such instances. However, I firmly believe that my authentic

response and our mutual vulnerability helped the participants and me feel a little less alone in

the world. I firmly believe this human connection was one of the most important aspects of my

research. Moreover, it inspired me to start an online dis/abled community, as discussed in

Chapter 8.

***Content warning: grief and suicidal ideation

Sometimes I would respond to similar and dissimilar experiences by probing further or

steering the conversation away from topics that were exceptionally emotionally difficult for me.
 Page 97

For example, I sometimes steered the conversation away from unbearable grief, suicidality, and

hospitalization despite my desire to engage in a participant-led interview style. Needless to say,

I deeply connected with some of the Stories. Other times, even though I wanted to practice

active listening, I found myself anticipating what they might say next and queuing up the

probes I might respond with. Still other times I found myself drifting into my own thoughts as I

tried to deconstruct my own privilege in relation to the participants' experiences. More often, I

struggled to be present and attentive, as I dissociated or relived my own similar experience.

***End content warning: grief and suicidal ideation

As I analyzed the data some Stories stood out to me. Whether I realized this in the

moment or not, these Stories likely stood out to me due to their alignment with my own

experiences. For example, I likely choose to share Story 3 in Chapter 7 due to its similarity with

my own experience and the strong emotions I connect with that experience. In Beardmore

(2022a), I describe how a prior coworker shared their belief that our employer needed to avoid

hiring a trans woman and produce a significant amount of paperwork “justifying” this decision

to avoid being sued by her down the road for wrongful loss of employment due to her gender.

Story 3 shares how a participant had difficulty finding a principal investigator to take them on as

a graduate student after multiple principal investigators realized the participant was dis/abled.

After deciding to share Story 3 in Chapter 7, I realized I may have prioritized it due to the

emotional response it elicited in me. I interpreted the participant’s Story through my own

experience, believing the principal investigators may have refused to work with the participant

because they were afraid they may have difficulty firing the participant down the road due to

the participant’s dis/ability status.

 Page 98

I was frequently reminded of the many privileges and opportunities I have experienced

especially in regard to my relationships with my research advisors and mentors. Suffice it to say,

carrying out this research influenced my fluid understanding of my own identity. A more in-

depth consideration of my current and historical understanding of my positionality can be

found at https://dcbeardmore.com/positionality/.
 Page 99

CHAPTER 4. PARTICIPANTS

In this chapter, I describe the collective identities of the participants. I recount how I

used the words the participants' used to describe themselves in constructing the amalgamated

description. I discuss limitations in both the methodology and the small sample size in exploring

the multidimensional experiences of dis/abled students. I provide descriptions of the

participants’ institutional enrollment and engagement to contextually situate the participant’s

perceptions and experiences. I also construct a poem to describe the participant’s identity. The

poem is arranged into 11 stanzas, the order of which roughly represents the frequency of

identity themes in the data. These stanzas in descending order include the participants’

dis/ability using person-first language; dis/ability using identity-first language; gender; familial

relations; socioeconomic status; sexuality; race and ethnicity; native language(s); nationality;

age; and religion. I then recount some of the participants' self-described experiences

participating in this study.

4.1. Identifying Participant Demographics

I would like to draw your attention to the methods used to collect data around the

participants’ identities. I provided participants in both phases with opportunities to describe

their intersectionality. However, I emphasized to the participants that answering questions

around their identity was optional as my priority was to optimize their comfort, privacy, agency,

and safety. During Phase 1, I asked the participants “For the context of this study, how do you

identify?”. I offered to show them a figure that included a few examples of identity spectrum.

Phase 2 did not include any interview questions regarding identity. Rather, two optional
 Page 100

questions were included in the post-interview survey. Please note: the survey questions and

interview prompts are available upon request.

This difference in technique and the low response rate to the post-interview survey

questions regarding identity are likely responsible for the low frequency of data regarding

identities such as age and religion. The majority of data surrounding the participants’ identities

was provided by participant responses to open-ended questions regarding the participants’

experiences with dis/ability in the academy. The participants frequently mentioned their

gender, familial relations, socioeconomic status, sexuality, and race and ethnicity in relation to

dis/ability. Future work should prioritize deeper exploration into how these multiple aspects of

identity interact and connect.

4.2. Constructing Participant Identities

Rather than attribute a string of descriptions to any one participant, I amalgamate the

descriptions of participants to share aspects of their identity in a collective manner. I chose this

means of presentation because it is appropriate for representing a range of information and it

adds a layer of protection to the participants’ anonymity (Jarrett & Light, 2019). Moreover, the

participants preferred it. Specifically, I amalgamate the participants' demographic information

into constructed statements concerning their institutions, careers, and accommodation

timelines.

4.2.1. A poetic Approach

I then use an alternative literary form to capture the messages participants shared

around their identity (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996 as cited in Morton & Parsons, 2018). Lorde
 Page 101

(1984) positions the power of prose or “revelatory distillation” to capture and reveal the

concepts, ideas, and experiences behind the power of Black women. Such writing places

participants as the creator of true knowledge and understanding (Lorde, 1984). Scholars

embrace this approach, arranging the words of participants into a poem to capture the

meanings obtained (Glesne, 1997; Morton & Parsons, 2018) especially as it counters the

hegemonic norm of “academic” writing. Further, it provides the creative freedom to counter

“neurotypical” expectations by embracing the beauty of the neurodiverse and “Mad” mind

(Gillis, 2015; LeFrançois et al., 2013). Please note that this poem is inspired by and modeled on

Morton and Parsons (2018) “I am” poem. This poem is a construction of the participants’

descriptions of their identities.

4.2.2. Considering Intersecting Identities

It is important to note that the participants did discuss their experiences in relation to

multiple concurrent intersectional identities (e.g., dis/ability, gender, and race). However, some

of the participants asked for such descriptions be omitted from subsequent publications.

Honoring this request, I decided to limit the number of identities linked to a single participant.

Such discussion could be identifiable for some readers. For example, I am a dis/abled,

nonbinary, and biracial (White and Native American) STEM graduate student. If I were a

participant in a study and these three aspects of my identity were correlated in a publication,

someone might be able to identify me. Knowing this combination of identities is uncommon, a

reader who had met me might suspect I was a participant and may try to identify which quotes

belong to me. This could be especially problematic if the reader is familiar with some of my
 Page 102

experiences or thinks they know the people or places I describe in my narrative. Thus I

amalgamate the participants’ identities into a single poem.

As stated in Chapter 2, such identities cannot be disaggregated. Rather a person’s

experiences and ways of knowing are holistically based on their multidimensionality. Thus, I ask

the reader to hold the totality of the poem in mind as they consider the Stories in Chapters 5, 6,

and 7. I ask the reader to consider the identities participants may have not have dis/closed. I

ask the reader to remember that no single participant held all of the identities in the poem and

consider the Stories through the context of varying multidimensionalities.

4.2.3. In their words

Most of the words in the identity poem are the participants’ verbatim quotes. In a few

cases, longer descriptions have been paraphrased for brevity. After some of the short

descriptors for the “I am” and “I have” statements, I have included longer clean verbatim

quotes to support the meaning of the constructed stanzas. I include these longer quotations in

italics.

4.2.4. Translating themes into stanzas

The ten stanzas of the Identity poem are composed of the words of the seven

participants in an attempt to represent their collective identity. Each “I am” and “I have” stanza

focuses on themes around the participant’s identity as described by the participants in their

interviews and post-interview survey. The stanzas include the participant’s self-described

identities. In descending order the stanzas represent the participants’ (1) dis/ability using

person-first language; (2) dis/ability using identity-first language; (3) gender; (4) familial
 Page 103

relations; (5) socioeconomic status; (6) sexuality; (7) race and ethnicity; (8) native language(s);

(9) nationality; (10) age; (11) religion. The order of the stanzas roughly represents the frequency

of which these identities were mentioned in the data.

Again, I would like to remind the reader that the various aspects of each participants’

multidimensionality cannot be disaggregated. The experience of Black women is different than

the experience of white women and Black men (Crenshaw, 1989). The reason for presenting

this information in this manner is to protect the identities of the participants. Moreover, I

would like to highlight that there are many dimensions of identity that are not represented in

the poem. The identities I coded reflect my limited but growing understanding of identity.

4.3. Resulting amalgamations

4.3.1. Participant institutions

The participants included seven individuals who enrolled or recently enrolled in STEM

programs seeking a master’s and/or doctoral degree(s) at publicly funded and private

universities. These universities fell under the classifications of predominantly white institutions

(PWI), Hispanic serving institutions (HSI), or private historically white institutions, as defined by

Bourke (2016). These institutions held R1 (very high research activity) and R2 (high research

activity) Carnegie classifications, as defined by the Trustees of Indiana University (2021a). Each

of the participants studied one or more of the following disciplines: Computer Science,

Engineering Design, Civil Engineering, Cognitive Psychology, Chemistry, Engineering Education,

Global/Humanitarian/Community based Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Biology.

Please note that these disciplines are not necessarily the names of the programs the
 Page 104

participants were enrolled in. Additionally, please note that some participants had previously

been or were concurrently enrolled in non-STEM degree programs.

4.3.2. Participant careers

The participants included individuals who had previously or concurrently served in the

military, worked in industry, earned prior graduate degree(s), and/or entered graduate school

immediately after earning their undergraduate degree(s). The participants held multiple roles

at their institutions in that they conducted research and participated in coursework.

Additionally, many participants concurrently held employee positions. Some participants had

partial or full funding through research assistantships with grant-funded projects, fellowships,

scholarships, teaching assistantships, and staff roles while others had no funding.

4.3.3. Participant accommodation timelines

Some participants had “diagnoses” and formal accommodations during their primary,

secondary, or undergraduate education; however, most participants developed dis/abilities or

were first diagnosed with some of their dis/abilities (even if they had been experiencing them

for a long time) in graduate school. While some but not all participants had been granted

formal accommodations from their institutions, all participants utilized informal

accommodations such as requesting a professor excuse absences.

4.3.4. Participant identity poem

I have…
dis/abilities…temporary dis/abilities…invisible dis/abilities…an invisible
dis/ability...psychological dis/abilities…differences in the way my brain works—
and sometimes those are really awesome… different abilities…major depressive
 Page 105

disorder…clinical depression...clinical anxiety…anxiety…attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)...post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)...complex
post-traumatic stress disorder (cPTSD)... panic disorder…PTSD sometimes
triggering depression…polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)…a “woman
disorder”…migraines…cluster migraines…temporary partial vision loss….hearing
loss…a traumatic brain injury (TBI)...scent sensitivity…a variety of environmental
allergies…dyslexia…Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)...
My dis/abilities would probably best be described as hidden
dis/abilities. You certainly can't see them just by looking at me, and you
would have to spend a good amount of time with me for me to talk about
them but they certainly impact my everyday life. I don't always want to
explain myself so sometimes I laugh stuff off as "oh ha-ha I must be bad
at this game because I keep getting left and right confused!" When really
as part of my dyslexia, I literally can't tell left from right…
I mean dis/ability is like such a term...it can mean so many
different things to different people and I don't know if color blindness is a
dis/ability or not… I guess I've learned a lot more about like what
dis/ability can mean and come to terms with who I am and like what's
going on with me—And it's been constantly changing…
I am…
sick…neurodiverse…neural divergent…neuro divergent…differently
abled…dis/abled… self-diagnosed due to the cost barriers…color blind—I still
don't really know if that's a dis/ability or not.…someone with dyslexia…an
individual with dis/ability and ability…dyslexic…a student with an invisible
dis/ability…grieving…“twice exceptional.”...
I was almost asymptomatic until I started grad school…
I am…
a woman… nonbinary…a demi-woman…queer…assigned female at birth…female
I present in a different way, all the time. Usually, I present a very
masculine image of myself…
I am assigned female at birth and have complicated feelings about
gender. I would say gender is something that does not resonate strongly
with me but it doesn’t hurt me either…
I have women inner parts…
I have…
a partner…a little brother...siblings…a stepmother…a mother…a
husband…parents…
I don't have a great home life—it's hard to be home…
I am…
rich…upper class…paying my own way…privileged…middle class…barely getting
on…losing my financial stability, losing my mental health care…working three
jobs so I can afford to eat…maybe going to be homeless if I can’t find a lab to
fund me so I can pay my rent…
 Page 106

There’s all this financial burden…You know it's been pretty

stressful, especially because I can't ask my parents for help…
I am…
LGBTQIA…gay… a lesbian…bisexual…queer…pansexual…pansexual or bisexual—
depending on who I am speaking with…
I am…
Hispanic and white… Latina…half white…White
Others refer to me as “white-passing.” They ask me “what are
you?”
I am…
not entirely fluent in Spanish…bilingual…English speaking…English and Spanish
speaking…
My native language is English…I grew up speaking both Spanish
and English…
I am…
American...Mexican American…American-born Columbian… a second-generation
American…
I am…
non-traditional…in my twenties…
I am…
spiritual but not religious…a fairly strong atheist…

4.4. Discussion of participant identities

4.4.1. Diagnoses

I briefly define some of the aforementioned diagnoses here, to provide context to

readers who may not be familiar with them. How conditions are defined, diagnosed, and

labeled has changed over time (Sanders et al., 2019). While several of the participants were

given a medical diagnoses during graduate school, the definitions here do not necessarily

reflect those of the participants’.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is defined by the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of mental disorders (DSM) (2022b) as a “neurodevelopmental disorder

defined by impairing levels of inattention, disorganization, and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity.

 Page 107

Inattention and disorganization entail inability to stay on task, seeming not to listen, and losing

materials necessary for tasks, at levels that are inconsistent with age or developmental level.”

However, ADHD, like many other forms of neurodiversity has many positive attributes, as

previously described in Chapter 2.

The DSM also provides definitions for anxiety and mood disorders. The DSM defines

anxiety as the anticipation of a future threat (American Psychiatric Association, 2022a). The

DSM states that “Anxiety disorders include disorders that share features of excessive fear and

anxiety and related behavioral disturbances.” Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is the

development of intrusion symptoms (e.g., intrusive involuntary memories, nightmares, or

flashbacks related to the trauma), avoidance of stimuli associated with trauma, and other

symptoms following the exposure to one or more traumatic events (directly experiencing,

witnessing, learning of trauma experienced by a close family member or friend, experiencing

repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of traumatic events) one or more traumatic

events (American Psychiatric Association, 2022c). The DSM defines major depressive disorder

as being characterized “by discrete episodes of at least 2 weeks’ duration (although most

episodes last considerably longer) involving clear-cut changes in affect, cognition, and

neurovegetative functions and interepisode remissions” (“Depressive Disorders,” 2022).

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a hormonal irregularity that can affect people with

ovaries (Mayo Clinic staff, 2022). It causes an excess of fluid-filled sacs called cysts to develop

along the outer edge of the ovary (Mayo Clinic staff, 2022). It has a variety of serious medical

complications including Metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, Endometrial cancer, depression,

anxiety, eating disorders (Mayo Clinic staff, 2022), and severely painful medical emergencies
 Page 108

such as ovarian torsion (Yale Medicine, 2022) and some forms of ruptured ovarian cysts

(u/mookiexmac, 2014).

It is important to note that some of the diagnoses listed here frequently co-occur with

one another, e.g., PTSD and depression(Thabet et al., 2004). Some may even contribute to,

interact with, or cause other conditions, e.g., the link between post-traumatic stress and

inflammatory conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome (Katrinli et al., 2022) . This can also

be true of the medications used to treat some of them. However, describing these relationships

is outside of the scope of this dissertation.

4.4.2. Claimed & unclaimed identities

There were many identities along the identified spectrums that the participants did and

did not claim. As noted in Chapter 3, the selection criteria necessitated that participants

identify as having one or more dis/abilities. All participants described having dis/abilities that

would fit under the “multiple dis/abilities” category of the Individuals with Dis/abilities

Education Act (IDEA) (Lee, 2014). Specifically, the participants described dis/abilities in the

“specific learning dis/ability (SLD)”, “other health impairment”, “emotional disturbance”,

“visual impairment”, “hearing impairment”, and “traumatic brain injury” categories (Lee, 2014).

However, the participants did not identify dis/abilities in the “Autism spectrum disorder (ASD)”,

“Deafness”, “orthopedic impairment”, and “intellectual dis/ability” categories.

It is important to note that while some of the participants held privileged identities (e.g.,

white and upper-class) none of the participants described themselves as “men/male” nor

“straight/heterosexual.” Some of the identities absent from those the participants shared in the
 Page 109

study include a number of races and ethnicities that may experience dis/ability very differently

(e.g., Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Indigenous, Native American) (Artiles, 2013; Bell, 2011;

Imada, 2017).

Some of the participants noted their lingualism. These participants claimed English as

one of their first languages. Some participants also claimed Spanish as one of their first

languages. However, the participants did not necessarily indicate if they were fluent in spoken,

written, and/or signed versions of the language. It is also important to note that none of the

participants identified English as a second or nth language. Lower fluency in English can often

become a barrier to education in the United States (Cioè-Peña, 2020; Commission on Langage

Learning, 2017).

With regards to nationality, the participants identified being American as at least one of

their nationalities. No participants identified themselves as first-generation immigrants. The

attitudes and behaviors around dis/ability not only vary across subcultures in the US (Goodley,

2014) but can be even more diverse in different countries across the globe (Ghai, 2002;

Mckenzie, 2010; Watermeyer et al., 2011). Nationality cannot only have a significant influence

on how individuals are treated by others in America (American Civil Liberties Union, 2022) but

also on how an individual conceptualizes dis/ability itself. Additionally, none of the participants

noted their immigration documentation status, which could be a large factor in how oppression

and dis/ability is experienced (Ballerini & Feldblum, 2021; Echave & Gonzalez, 2022).

Many of the participants did not mention age or religion. The identities one most closely

identifies with are often the identities that deviate the most from societal norms [reference].

The limited sharing of identities related to age and religion may indicate that some of the
 Page 110

participants held positions of privilege within those spectrums. However, it is important to note

that age and religion can have a considerable influence on how a dis/ability is experienced. For

example, dis/ability is often considered normal for middle-aged and especially elderly

Americans. However, these age ranges are considered “non-traditional” and are not as

common in graduate programs. Additionally, intersections such as sex and age (especially in

regard to fertility) can play an important role in academia, requiring many female academics to

choose between their career and starting a family (Kossek et al., 2021; Mendez, 2022). It is also

important to note the impact religion can have on the experience of dis/ability. For example,

Christianity is a common and dominant religion held by STEM students in the United States

(Brekus et al., 2011). However, someone holding the dual identity of “Christian” and

“Dis/abled” may feel dually isolated from both STEM and Christian communities as some

dis/abilities (e.g., HIV) can be positioned as taboo and sinful and have historically been

indicative of punishment (e.g., amputation) in Christian society (Brekus et al., 2011).

Some of the participants framed their experience with dis/ability in terms of familial

relations. Some indicated the dis/ability status of loved ones (e.g., parents, a brother, and a

partner). Some participants also noted their family’s perception of dis/ability and the emotional

and financial support or lack of support they received from their family in getting diagnosed

with a dis/ability. Additionally, some participants noted how significant family events (e.g., the

birth or death of a family member(s)) impacted their experience and perceptions. However,

none of the participants identified themselves as current or expecting caretakers or parents

(nor caretakers). Caretaking is known to be a significant barrier to accessing education (V.

 Page 111

Brown & Nichols, 2013) and participating in academia (Mendez, 2022); although, some of the

participants did identify barriers faced by their graduate student colleagues with children.

4.5. Participant remarks on study participation

While conducting this research, I attempted to identify the thoughts the participants

had about participating in the study. In Phase 2, I included a question in the optional post-

interview survey that asked “Would you like to provide any feedback on your experience

participating in this study? Or what it meant to you to participate in this study?” Out of the four

Phase 2 participants who responded to the optional survey, two responded to this question.

However, I did not include a specific interview question around the participants' experiences or

desire to participate in the study in Phase 1. I list the participants’ verbatim responses to the

Post-Interview Survey below.

[D.C.] was reliably friendly and respectful, and they did a fantastic job of
validating my feelings without altering my narrative.

Participating in this study was pretty eye-opening because I do not usually count
my dis/abilities. I can still function, I do not usually ask for accommodations etc.
When I got the information for the study even, I wasn't sure if I counted. But in
reality, I do not think I'd put the same barriers on anyone else so why should I
gatekeep myself?
 Page 112

CHAPTER 5. ALIENATING ENVIRONMENT

Exploring the experiences and impacts of powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation in

the STEM higher education environment

Alienated academics are negatively impacted by existing in STEM spaces. An alienating

climate impedes their professional advancement, social relationships, well-being, and health.

The purpose of this chapter is to identify if and how dis/abled STEM graduate students

experience one or more of the three dimensions of alienation: powerlessness, normlessness,

and social isolation. I conducted exploratory qualitative interviews with seven STEM graduate

students who self-identified as having dis/abilities. This chapter organizes their experiences into

ten excerpts embedded within a discussion to explore how the participants interconnectedly

experience alienation. The participants’ lived experiences illuminate challenges to the

persistence, wellbeing, and health of STEM academics as well as opportunities to overcome

them. They elucidate the structural ableism, racism, sexism, and genderism in the subsequent

devaluation and exclusion of those not fitting the neoliberal ideal (i.e., a white, able, cis-male).

This chapter presents excerpts from participant interviews to highlight institutional and

interpersonal power dynamics in relation to powerlessness. These excerpts also interrogate the

power of norms to deny nonnormative reality, the lack of “choice” in conformance, and the

need to “pass” in relation to normlessness. The chapter also explores the chilly climate of STEM

education, the abuse (microaggressions), lack of representation, and stereotype threat faced by

students with multiple nonnormative identities in relation to social isolation.

 Page 113

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. Problem

Existing in a hostile or alienating climate portends very real professional and personal

consequences for students and academics who exist outside of the normative body-mind

(Cepeda, 2021; Cross et al., 2022). Conceptualizing students as workers, academic alienation

describes the “emotional or cognitive separation from different contextual aspects of education

like the procedure of learning and education, the atmosphere of the university, lecturers, and

other students as well as the sense of separation from their scientific products” (Ahmadi et al.,

2021, p. 196). Academic alienation “has a deep impact on a student’s everyday life” (Ahmadi et

al., 2021, p. 196).

This is especially true for nonnormative individuals. This dissertation uses the term

nonnormative to describe people who are different from the normative notion of the ideal

body-mind. This could be someone who looks, acts, thinks, or sounds different than the typical

and/or dominant individuals in a normalized space.

Academic alienation harms nonnormative individuals regardless of whether the

individual appears to conform or does not conform to the norms, values, and goals of the

group. Nonnormative academics experience less support and have fewer mentoring networks

than their normative peers (Mendez, 2022). Nonnormative academics also experience isolation,

hiring and promotion discrimination, tokenism, devaluing of their work, and sexual harassment

at higher rates than their normative peers (Mendez, 2022).

Academic alienation, as a psychological state and sociological process, has been found

to be correlated with several negative outcomes. Academic alienation is negatively correlated

 Page 114

with self-efficacy (subjective judgments about one’s abilities and competencies) (Ahmadi et al.,

2021). Similarly, it is negatively correlated with postsecondary student academic motivation

(the willingness or need to engage in the learning process) (Ahmadi et al., 2021), postsecondary

student learning (Barnhardt & Ginns, 2014), postsecondary student academic performance

(National, A. O. S. E. A., National, A. O. E., Policy, A. G. A., Board, O. H. E. A. W., Division, O. B. A.

S. S., Board, O. S. E., & Committee, O. B. A. O. I., 2016; Tan, 2022), and secondary student

mathematical performance (Atnafu, 2012). It is also positively correlated with school dropout

(Hascher & Hagenauer, 2010; Tan, 2022) and negatively correlated with persistence and degree

completion (Dean, 1961).

Alienated academics endure negative consequences for existing in STEM spaces such as

impacts to professional advancement, social relationships, well-being, and health (Cepeda,

2021; Cross et al., 2022). While alienation is frequently identified for low academic achievers,

high academic achievers have also been found to experience academic alienation, at least in

middle adolescence (Hascher & Hagenauer, 2010). This is an important consideration when

studying academic alienation in postsecondary education environments since one could assume

that postsecondary students have been successful in at least some academic areas. It is also

reasonable to assume that alienation might change as a student's approach to learning

changes. This is an important consideration since many people develop or are diagnosed with

dis/abilities after completing their K-12 education (Hosking, 2008), as discussed in Chapter 2.

5.1.2. Literature review

Musto (2010, 2021) traces the history of the concept and theory of alienation through

its emergence in the late 1770s, disappearance around the 1850s, and re-emergence in the
 Page 115

1920s. Musto (2010, 2021) also characterizes how the concept gained popularity in the 1960s

leading to its indiscriminate application. This “created a profound terminological ambiguity”

(Musto, 2010). Musto (2010) notes that within the space of a few years, the term alienation

became profoundly ambiguous.

Prior to the rise in popularity of the term, a great deal of alienation literature could be

categorized as building on the tenants of alienation offered by Hegel or Marx (Musto, 2021).

Both concepts bound alienation within the relationship between people and things. The

Hegelian conceptualization positions alienation as an ontological manifestation of labor. Marx’s

conceptualization positions alienation as resulting from the capitalist epoch of production.

Notably, Seeman (1959) built on these concepts to conceptualize alienation as “the discrepancy

between personal expectation and reward in the context of modern society” (Rovai & Wighting,

2005). Building on Seeman’s work, Dean (1961) redefined alienation to consist of three

dimensions: social isolation, powerlessness, and normlessness (Rovai & Wighting, 2005).

The term has only made sparse appearances in literature since falling back out of vogue

in the 1970s (e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2021; Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Mau (1992) defined alienation

as a sense of social estrangement in the absence of meaningful social connection and social

support (Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Bronfenbrenner (1986) positioned alienation as lacking a

sense of belonging—to be alienated is to lack a sense of belonging, to feel cut off from family,

friends, or school (Rovai & Wighting, 2005).

5.1.3. Theoretical framing

While there are countless theoretical framings of alienation, as mentioned in the

previous section, this Chapter builds upon Marx’s conceptualization of alienation in the
 Page 116

Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and the 1876 publication of Capital as well as

Dean’s (1961) conceptualization of alienation. Marx conceptualizes alienation as the product of

the commodity fetishism, i.e., a particular form of domination with real power and

consequence resulting from the dominant social structures and power relations under the

Capitalist epoch of production. Marx describes alienation as a worker’s estrangement from

their individual freedom (as it relates to the product of their labor, their labor activity, self, and

connection to other humans). Dean (1961) positions alienation within three dimensions: social

isolation, powerlessness, and normlessness. Thus, alienation can be described as the

estrangement of a laborer from their individual freedom, within three dimensions social

isolation (connection to other humans), powerlessness (product of labor and labor activity), and

normlessness (self)—resulting from the dominant social structures and power relations of

society. I define each dimension within the academic context below.

5.1.3.1. Powerlessness

Dean (1961) defines powerlessness as the belief that one has little control or influence

over one's choices and what occurs. I align Dean’s concept of “powerlessness” with Marx’s

conceptualization of the confrontation between labor and the product of labor in the Economic-

Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and commodity fetishism the 1876 publication of Capital.

That is, I position “powerlessness” as the conflict between labor and the product of labor when:

● The value of the worker is predicated on the product of their labor

● Those who own and control the means of production control:

○ The product of a worker’s labor

○ The activity or means of the worker’s labor

 Page 117

● The product of the worker’s labor exerts power over the worker by

○ Empowering those who control the means of production

○ Reinforcing dominant social structures and power relations

Conceptualizing powerlessness within postsecondary education, students can be

thought of as workers. Thus, academic powerlessness can be defined as the belief that an

academic (student, faculty, or staff) has little choice, control, or influence over the product of

their labor and the activity of their labor. The product of their labor can be thought of as

research data, research outcomes/findings, research publications, and learning outcomes/skills.

The activity of their labor can be thought of as the methods of their research, the way in which

they are required to engage in content (e.g., reading literature, interviewing experts, or

attending lectures) and the subject of their studies and/or research.

Those who control the means of production can be thought of as professors, principal

investigators (PI) 34s, or faculty research advisors. At a higher level, department and program

leadership influence the means of production through the expectations, job responsibilities,

and promotion requirements they impose on faculty and staff. At an even higher level, the

social structures of academic disciplines, professional societies, academia at large, and society

influence department and program leadership.

The more product a student produces, the more power those who control the means of

production have over and against the student. Thus, the more time and energy a student

expends producing research for their PI, the more research their PI publishes. For example, in

34
I try to avoid acronyms to make my writing more accessible, however I use PI in the following paragraph due to its
extensive use in the paragraph and the desire to increase readability by keeping the paragraph concise.
 Page 118

many STEM disciplines the more publications a PI has in high-impact journals, the closer the PI

gets to meeting their tenure requirements. The more publications the PIs of an institution

produce, the more prestige an institution has. The more prestige an institution has, the more

influence institutional leadership have over the norms and expectations of a field or discipline.

Greater influence means they have higher control over what journals are considered “high

impact”, what research is considered “important”, what research is “worthy” of funding, what

pedagogies are “rigorous”, what educational outcomes are considered “essential.” The more

research a student produces, the more control disciplinary leadership and PIs have over their

research. The more physical and mental energy a student expends, the more estranged they

become from their personal life and chosen life-activity.

Students who feel powerless often give up when encountering resistance or failure

(Dean, 1961). For example, the perception of an excessive workload (inappropriately large

amounts of time and effort required to complete assignments) positively correlates with

disengagement (Barnhardt & Ginns, 2014) whereas student discretion over what students learn

is negatively correlated with feelings of alienation (Barnhardt & Ginns, 2014).

5.1.3.2. Normlessness

Dean (1961) describes normlessness in terms of inconsistency between one’s own

interests, values, and goals with that of the dominant or socially imposed rules, codes, and

norms. Similarly, one of the dimensions of alienation that Marx constructs is the worker’s

estrangement from themself (Marx, 1867). Marx describes how the more time and energy a

worker devotes to such estranged labor the more the labor activity becomes the object of their

will and consciousness. Thus, estranged labor estranges the worker from nature, their own free
 Page 119

conscious life-activity, their character, their body, and their spiritual essence or self. Combining

these definitions, normlessness can be conceptualized as the incompatibility of the worker’s

sense of self, interests, values, and goals with the norms they must conform to, express

themselves through, and embody.

Conceptualizing normlessness within postsecondary education, students can again be

thought of as workers. The more time and energy a nonnormative student devotes to their role

as a student or researcher, the more difficult it may become to engage in their interests and live

into their values if their interests and values are in conflict or only peripherally related to the

norms they are expected to follow. Thus, academic normlessness can be described as the

inauthenticity or self-estrangement an academic feels when their interests, values, and goals

are inconsistent with, devalued by, or are restricted/prohibited by the socially imposed

dominant norms of their lab group, program, department, college, or institution.

For example, Chapter 6, describes the culture of productivity that is embedded in STEM.

Students who value creativity, exploration, and flexibility or who are motivated by creative

expression may feel restricted in an environment that has rigid requirements in the pursuit of

efficiency. A student who values collaboration may feel devalued and betrayed in an

environment that promotes competition.

Another example tied to both normlessness and powerlessness would be a student who

is hired to work on a research project to fund their education even if it is not fully aligned with

their personal interests. Dis/abled students are less likely to receive funding (U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Dis/abled students may have less
 Page 120

options available to them or less of a choice over the options available due to the increased

debt they are likely carrying (National Educational Association of Disabled Students, 2019).

Experiencing normlessness can adversely affect student performance, success, and

persistence (Dean, 1961). For example, the perception that goals and standards are clear and

that assessments emphasize the growth of personal understanding rather than fact recall is

negatively correlated with disengagement (Barnhardt & Ginns, 2014). Chronic stress, such as

that experienced by Black students experiencing normlessness and alienation in the hostile

environments of predominantly white institutions can lead to trauma symptomatology later in

life, long after they leave the environment (Lamb et al., 2022).

5.1.3.3. Social isolation

Dean (1961) describes social isolation as the feeling of exclusion and loneliness even in

the company of others. Rovai and Wighting (2005) note that social isolation is the absence of

social support and meaningful connection that occurs when someone feels they do not

belong—I.e., when there is a lack of meaningful, intimate relationships with peers, family, and

the wider community. They argue that belonging is a basic human need (Rovai & Wighting,

2005). Marx similarly describes how estranged labor estranges workers from other humans.

Thus, social isolation can be recognized as the worker’s estrangement from their connection to

other humans.

Applying this concept to education, academic social isolation can be described as the

feeling of exclusion or loneliness an academic feels in the absence of social support,

connection, and belonging in their lab group, program, department, college, or institution.

Students who are isolated are not only separated from mainstream groups (Dean, 1961). They
 Page 121

feel a lack of connection to others, feel that no one cares about them, or feel that no one pays

attention to them (Dean, 1961). For example, the perception that a teacher is supportive and

guides students through potentially confusing concepts is negatively correlated with

disengagement (Barnhardt & Ginns, 2014). Lack of social support contributes to negative

impacts such as depression, decreased self-esteem, academic burnout, and helplessness

(Ahmadi et al., 2021). These examples raise important implications in the STEM academic

environment since it is likely to be impersonal (Bairaktarova & Pilotte, 2020).

5.1.3.4. Alienating climate

As introduced in Chapter 1, one of the guiding research questions for this study was:

How are STEM graduate students with less apparent dis/abilities experiencing dis/ability in the

culture and climate of their academic environment? Thus, it is important to define

organizational climate and culture.

An organizational climate can be described as the general or day-to-day sense, feeling,

or atmosphere people perceive in the organization (Wilkinson, 2016). Unlike organizational

culture (discussed in chapter 6), an organizational climate can change quickly. It can be locally

created by what leaders do, what circumstances apply, what environments afford, what events

occur, how people respond to events, and incidents between people (Wilkinson, 2016). In

short, climate can be described as how a space feels and how one’s colleagues behave

(Arredondo et al., 2022).

Since the focus of this chapter is on an alienating climate, it is also important to explore

how STEM climates have been previously described in the literature. Research over the past

several decades has consistently identified hostile or unwelcoming environments and chilly
 Page 122

climates in STEM higher education (Lichtenstein et al., 2014). The term “chilly climate” was first

used to describe an organizational climate marked by “the subtle and not subtle ways men and

women are treated differently in the classroom and at work” (Hall & Sandler, 1982).Chilly

climates have also been found regarding the ways in which dis/abled students are treated

(Beilke & Yssel, 1999; Miller & Downey, 2019). Chilly climates are positively correlated with

social and academic withdrawal and isolation (Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM

Federal Coordination in STEM Education Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021).

Such an inhospitable environment propagates the differential treatment of women such

that women are less valued and included (IGI Global, 2022). Micro-inequities such as lower

expectations, presumed incompetence, exclusion, discouragement, and overt hostile behavior

adversely affect women’s opportunities and experiences (Arredondo et al., 2022). Later,

Sandler acknowledged that chilly climates might impact women differently depending on their

age, race, sexuality, and dis/ability status (Arredondo et al., 2022). Sandler also noted that chilly

climates might also affect other “outsiders'' in the higher education space (e.g., men of color,

English language learners, and working-class individuals).

5.1.4. Purpose

The purpose of this Chapter is to identify if and how dis/abled STEM graduate students

experience the powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation dimensions of alienation.

Chapter 1 describes how the focus of this study is on the experiences of intersectional students

who are dis/abled rather than on the participants experiences with dis/ability. That is, the

exploration of this alienation in this study is not likely to be unique to dis/abled individuals.

Studies have indicated that dis/abled students may be the first to be affected by practices that
 Page 123

ultimately may impact all students (Jacklin, 2011). My aim in studying the experiences of

dis/abled students in this Chapter is to identify how alienation may be impacting not only

dis/abled students but students embodying a variety of nonnormative and normative identities.

By identifying how dis/abled students are affected by alienating environments, I hope to create

a starting point for further exploration regarding the impacts of alienating environments on all

postsecondary students.

5.1.5. Research Questions

1. To what extent are facets of alienation (powerlessness, normlessness, and social

isolation) evident in the experiences of dis/abled STEM graduate students?

2. If and how are dis/abled graduate students experiencing and being impacted by

alienation in the STEM academic environment?

3. If and how do the experiences of powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation

interact in the experiences of dis/abled graduate STEM students?

5.2. Methods

Chapter 3 addresses the study design and methods used in collecting and analyzing the

data presented in this chapter. Chapter 4 describes this study’s particiapnts. The results in

Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 are each presented in a different manner. Chapter 3

includes the majority of the description regarding the presentation of results; however, a few

key parts are repeated below.

I present the results of this study as collective Stories. I amalgamate the experiences of

the seven participants into a composite form to highlight both the collective meaning and
 Page 124

aspects of variation in the participants’ collective experiences. I chose this means of

presentation because it is appropriate for representing a range of experiences and it adds a

layer of protection to the participants’ anonymity (Jarrett & Light, 2019).

Even though the Stories present in this chapter are amalgamations of the participants’

clean verbatim quotes, I refer to each excerpt as having only one participant in my discussion.

Since the excerpt is an amalgamation told from the first-person perspective, I chose to prioritize

consistency. Thus, I refer to the amalgamated participant in each excerpt as a singular

participant. I use “they/them” pronouns to represent the amalgamated participant of each

Story in this chapter.

I organize the results of this chapter into ten excerpts interwoven within my discussion.

Each excerpt may or may not be representative of the experiences of multiple participants.

Each excerpt does not tell a full Story, rather it provides a “snapshot” of the full Story. Within

an excerpt, each paragraph includes clean verbatim quotes from only one participant. I attempt

to present each excerpt in time with the themes I discuss; however multiple themes are

represented in many of the excerpts. I number and title each excerpt for the reader's

convenience.

5.3. Findings and discussion

In this section, I discuss participant experiences of alienation and tie them to relevant

literature. This includes a discussion of the interconnected systems of alienation:

powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation. I provide a brief introduction to each. I do

not attempt to bound participant narratives within any one realm. Rather, I highlight aspects of
 Page 125

the narratives as they relate to components of powerlessness, normlessness, and social

isolation. I start by exploring powerlessness. I then expand the discussion of powerlessness by

exploring normlessness and its relationship to structures of power. Please note that I further

discuss aspects of normlessness and powerlessness in Chapters 6 and Chapter 7. Similarly, I

build onto normlessness through a discussion of social isolation and its relationship to

unrequited norms, values, and goals. I then explore the impacts of alienation. Finally, I explore

alternatives that might work to reduce alienation, based on suggestions by the participants

and/or grounded in the literature.

Figure 5-A provides a visual representation of the dimensions of alienation. It represents

the dimension of social isolation as an axis coming out of the page, normlessness going up, and

powerlessness going right. The origin represents belonging. The axes are not meant to be linear

nor to scale. They are meant to represent the existence of each dimension. Any point mapped

beyond the origin on any or all axes represents alienation.

Figure 5-A: Dimensions of Alienation

 Page 126

Figure 5-A draws a box from the origin point. Each corner of the box represents the

intersection of dimensions. The relationships between Social Isolation, Normlessness, and

Powerlessness are much more complex than the binary system depicted in Figure 5-A. Each

alienating experience included varying degrees of all dimensions. However, the purpose of the

box is to indicate the dimensions of alienation highlighted in each excerpt. Excerpt 1 highlights

an example of powerlessness. Similarly, Excerpt 6 highlights normlessness. Excerpt 3 and

Excerpt 5 highlight the dynamic nature between belonging and social isolation. Excerpt 2

highlights normlessness and powerlessness. Excerpt 4 highlights normlessness and social

isolation. Excerpt 8 highlights powerlessness and social isolation. Excerpt 7 highlights all

dimensions of alienation whereas Excerpt 9 and Excerpt 10 highlight belonging. Even as I

discuss each excerpt in the following sub sections, I sometimes mention the existence of all

three dimensions rather than just one or two. The plot points at the corners of the box in Figure

5-A merely represent the dimensions of alienation I wish to highlight the most in each excerpt.

5.3.1. Powerlessness

In institutions of higher education, powerlessness could be described as the students’

lack of control over the objectives they are expected to meet (products they must produce) and

how they engage in the process to meet those expectations. Considering degree attainment as

a product students produce, one can consider the powerlessness students face in the limited

amount of choice they may be given in the degree program, research topic, and institution they

enter. Yet students financially support and socially reinforce power structures by enrolling in a

specific degree program, a prerequisite course, or institution.

 Page 127

Prior literature has identified how higher education environments create and maintain a

large power differential. The power differential is propagated through expectations of rigor

(number of hours in the lab), tradition/norms (manner in which students are allowed to

produce and disseminate research), and choice in research topic (as impacted by available

projects with funding) (C. M. Campbell et al., 2018). The power differential is also propagated

through the student’s access to funding, as described in Chapter 1.

5.3.1.1. Institutional and Interpersonal power dynamics

Graduate students have more power than undergraduate students in some regards.

Graduate students sometimes hold positions of power over undergraduate students (U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). They serve as

teaching assistants, sometimes as instructors of record, and sometimes provide informal

advising to undergraduate students (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2019). Graduate students may have some ability to make or influence

organizational decisions depending on their employment within the university. Professors

sometimes treat graduate students more like peers than undergraduate students, for example,

by inviting graduate students to call the professor by their first name. Additionally, graduate

students may also be more aware of the power structures of the institution and what goes on

“behind the scenes.”

There are several differences between graduate and undergraduate students that may

give one more power than the other, depending on the situation. Graduate students are often

governed by different policies and processes than undergraduates as such policies are set by

the graduate school. For instance, the graduate school might set different upper limits to the
 Page 128

number of hours a student is permitted to work or the number of years a student can be

enrolled.

However, graduate students also have ways in which they have less power. Their

research advisor often holds substantial control over the graduate student. The research

advisor may have sole discretion over the enrollment status of the student, the topic the

student researches, what funding the student receives, and what coursework the student

engages in. This can be beneficial in some circumstances. It can remove some of the

bureaucracy involved in fulfilling degree requirements. However, it can also be detrimental to

students, as it gives the advisor significant power over the students’ future. The power

dynamics between research advisors and graduate students is further discussed in Chapter 7.

Beyond the direct power that academic advisors and professors hold over students,

institutional policies and organizations such as Student Dis/ability Services hold significant

power over dis/abled students. Rather than being a service to make education accessible to

students they often serve as the gatekeepers of access (Beardmore, 2022b). This means that for

dis/abled students to gain access to their education they must disclose and prove their

dis/ability to not only the dis/ability services office but also to their professors. In this way the

power differential is staggering.

Excerpt 1 describes a participant’s experience and frustration with their institution's

office of student dis/ability services and why they refuse to engage with that office again. They

describe the demoralizing requirements of the office which make it seem as if offices of

dis/ability services are structured to prevent students from getting access to help. The

participant describes the antagonistic role dis/ability services plays in keeping students from
 Page 129

“getting more than they deserve” and its standard practice of not trusting students. Excerpt 1

also emphasizes the need to believe students.

Excerpt 1: The power of dis/ability services offices

Dis/ability services is a whole fuck’n ’nother ballgame. I had such a bad time with
dis/ability services at [Name of Graduate University] that I just, I refuse to go
back there…

I don't know how it is with other universities, but I know that graduate students
at [uni], even the undergrads just have a rough time with dis/ability services
because it requires so much documentation. It's just the psychological aspect of
that is demoralizing. You're not believed to have what you say you have. And this
is beyond "show me a one-page document from your doctor that has all these.”
It's just, you guys are not a doctor's office. I don't have to give you my medical
history for you to give me the support that I feel like I need… and I am telling you
right now, I need extra time on my test. I just need it. I can give you information
from my doctor, but I will not, I absolutely will not describe to you my medical
history. That is beyond what you need to know for this. It's just bizarre. It's
almost as if our dis/ability services is scaffolded in such a way to prevent
students from getting access to help. That's just unnecessarily antagonistic.

I went to dis/ability services… two or three times. Once at my master's

institution which had no support for the PCOS 35 stuff. They were just like "suck it
up champ.” So I did. The second time I went to dis/ability services was at [name
of doctoral institution]. And they told me that I needed to basically prove that I
had what I said I had… And, like, I think, by now, you understand, like I'm not
really willing to talk to people about this, so the fact that they were like "prove
it" really turned me off… I was like "I could give you these documents. I really
could but I don't want to have to prove it. I'm so tired of having to prove things
to people. I want people just to believe me. After navigating the medical system
all by my lonesome and basically having doctors say "prove it.” That's not my job.
It's your job [the doctor's] is to figure it out.”... If it was just a letter from the
doctor that said I had these things that would be different. But they wanted
extensive documentation to make sure that I wasn't getting more than I
"deserved.” Okay, I won't play this game…I will not go to dis/ability services…

I think that we just need to try harder. What's on the surface isn't necessarily
what's going on below. We need to do our due diligence, especially for students
who have the potential to do great things. We need to support them in whatever

35
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is a common health condition related to androgen levels and the formation of
ovarian cysts (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020), as further discussed in Chapter 4.
 Page 130

form they come in. And for fucks sake we need to believe them. Don’t make
them jump through hoops or prove what their diagnosis is. Don't make them feel
like they have to disclose it to you in order to get the support that they need.

Some universities have started to move toward believing students. Some institutions,

such as the University of Colorado, have pushed to prohibit professors/instructors from

requiring absent students to furnish doctors notes to have their absence excused

(Niedringhaus, 2018; Pountney, 2019). Similarly, many professors have realized how forcing

students to use their cameras during Zoom calls sends a devaluing message. It tells students

they cannot be trusted, therefore they must be monitored. It adversely impacts many students

who do not have the privilege of financially affording a computer camera or joining the call

from an environment they feel comfortable publicly displaying to the class, much less to a

professor who does not trust them.

The underlying assumption that someone is lying or trying to get more than they

deserve is a deficit mindset. Assuming students are lying is a form of carceral pedagogy

(Swuager, 2020). That is, it applies practices, methods, and theories from the police state to

education (Swuager, 2020). It is fundamentally racist, classist, ableist, and oppressive. It

heightens the message that students are not worthy of trust, they are not valued, thus their

autonomy must be taken away from them. It increases powerlessness and normlessness,

especially for nonnormative students.

5.3.2. Normlessness

In institutions of higher education, normlessness could be described as the disconnect

between the student’s interests, values, goals, identity, and body-mind with the dominant

rules, codes, and norms. Scholars have suggested that the valorization and insistent reliance on
 Page 131

the normative notion of the autonomous, self-directed, self-interested, able-body-minded

academic constitutes a very real form of social control (Cepeda, 2021). Considering the

normative notions of a “good” student, it becomes particularly apparent how a dis/abled

student is inherently at odds with the socially imposed norms of the institution by simply

existing within the institution.

5.3.2.1. The power of norms

Such ableist notions, combined with the stark power imbalance in academia are used to

exclude contradictory values and individuals. They erode values such as social responsibility and

community (Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Moreover, they are used to exclude undesired body-

minds from academia (Cepeda, 2021; Grimes et al., 2020) and society (Goodley, 2014; Sins

Invalid, 2019).

Such disciplinary norms shape the identity, expertise, and sociopolitical status of faculty,

staff, and students (Cepeda, 2021; Mendoza, 2007). Authors have discussed the adverse

impacts of normlessness in terms of values on student performance, success, and persistence

(e.g., Dean, 1961). They discuss how failing to identify with an institution (i.e., recognize that

one has shared goals, values, and norms with those they encounter and those within power at

the institution) predisposed students to disengage from the institution (Hascher & Hagenauer,

2010). However, we must also discuss the impacts of the normlessness that comes from

existing within a racialized, queer, and/or dis/abled body-mind that directly contradicts the

normative notions of who can exist in STEM or academia (Cross et al., 2022).
 Page 132

5.3.2.2. Denied and validated reality

Institutions and the individuals within them attempt to deny nonnormative reality.

American education is founded on settler colonial notions of individualism and white middle-

class entitlement (Waterman, 2019). The history of the U.S. was driven by the perspective that

Indigenous cultural continuance must be erased, devalued, and replaced with that of the

dominant culture and values (Waterman, 2019). The U.S. has often weaponized “education” to

“reform” nonnormative individuals into settler colonial white middle-class standards. Some

non-Native “teachers” act in open hostility toward Indigenous students and discount

Indigenous student experiences (Waterman, 2019).

Excerpt 2 highlights the power professors have to dismiss and minimize students’ lived

experiences as insignificant. In this sense Excerpt 2 demonstrates how powerlessness can drive

normlessness. A participant recounted their experience of feeling “surrounded” by professors

who would dismiss their pain, attributing it to something wholly different than what the

participant was actually experiencing. The participant noted that the professor would

immediately dismiss, downplay, or trivialize the participant's pain without being willing to

consider the pain the student was in.

Excerpt 2: Surrounded

When you're in computer science and when you're in engineering you're

surrounded by older, usually conservative men who may or may not be from a
different country and a different culture altogether. So disclosing that
information to them, like for PCOS, is very difficult to do.

I think I only disclosed my PCOS to one particular professor but I was not
comfortable disclosing to any of the other professors in the slightest. Because
you get a measured response when you tell them you’re having period cramps or
whatever. That's the extent to which they were willing to think about PCOS, like,
“Oh, you know, ‘it's just that time of the month, this is cramps that you can just
 Page 133

power through if you just take an ibuprofen’.” No, I'm literally laid out on my
bed, I cannot get up.

PCOS has been the biggest pain in my ass because I am... The context is so weird
right, I mean I have my own hangups about it but also I'm in an environment of
primarily male faculty and staff. Talking about this is a little bit weird especially
like in the context of me being queer. I present in a different way, all the time.
Usually, I present a very masculine image of myself. And so having PCOS and
having woman inner parts and going up to people and being like “yeah I have
this very feminine dis/ability” throws people through a fucking wild loop. And I'm
just tired of dealing with it most days. I don't want to talk about it to most
people.

As the participant continued to tell their Story, the inappropriateness, for lack of a

better word, of this power differential only became more evident. If the student needed to miss

an exam for a life-threatening emergency, the participant felt they had to first get permission

from their professor. Their lived experience shows how powerless a person occupying multiple

non-dominant identities can feel when “surrounded” by people who do not share those

identities.

It is interesting to consider the response that “It's just that time of the month.” We do

not know the intention of the person making this claim. We also do not know if someone or

some people said this aloud or if it was what the participant assumed they were thinking. If it

was said aloud the person or people might have been trying to reduce distress and social

isolation by making a comparison to a more common experience. Regardless of the intention

behind such a statement, this Story shows us how it could make someone feel more socially

isolated. If it was an assumption the participant made about the thoughts of others it shows

how the participant interpreted their response or lack thereof as socially isolating.

The participant also described how not fitting the norm estranged them from their

professors. They described how simultaneously living with PCOS yet having “woman inner
 Page 134

parts” while being surrounded by men professors from different cultures and political

perspectives, while identifying as queer, and presenting as different genders put people

through a “fucking wild loop.” This Story demonstrates how multiple marginality, as discussed

in Chapter 2, can compound normlessness.

This experience relays how exhausting it can be to simultaneously navigate

powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation. The participant described being surrounded

by people with dominant identities. In this way, they indirectly refer to being isolated from

those with similar identities. Being “surrounded” points to social isolation, as it can be assumed

that those with similar identities have been crowded out. The participant experienced

normlessness in the invalidation they felt when disclosing their experience. They described

being tired of dealing with people and not wanting to talk about it with most people. This Story

demonstrates how normlessness can force an individual to further isolate themselves from

others. When professors who do not share the same values as a student have the power to

decide what exceptions and accommodations they will grant for a student they can further

exacerbate social isolation and normlessness. They do so by further validating the students’

perception that they are alone and that professors do not care about them being isolated. This

Story provides just one example of how powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation

cyclically compound upon one another creating and reinforcing an environment rife with

interpersonally, institutionally, and internally imposed alienation.

However, representation can counteract the feeling of being “surrounded'' in Excerpt 3.

The participant described how representation can normalize nonnormative identities. The

participant described how their openness about their mental health has helped them better
 Page 135

provide support to other students. This, in turn, made them more comfortable about talking

openly about their diagnosis, how they navigate their experience, and provide suggestions to

others when asked what they (others) should talk to their medical providers about.

Excerpt 3: The power of representation

Remind me to tell you a couple of things where I’ve done a better job than usual
because of my dis/ability. That’s a fun one. […] okay, very obvious in [program] I
have recognized severe depression in a number of [people] who had otherwise
“slipped under the radar.” I caught a couple of [people] who were suicidal, who
never told anybody that before, because nobody had asked…I’m in a position
where I can support a lot of labmates who are experiencing mental illness. And
I’ve been able to provide support—help people rebalance, that sort of thing.
Because I’m comfortable talking about this and I’m comfortable saying, “You
should talk to your provider about CBT 36. CBT might be a good fit for you.” And I
can normalize. I can make things accessible, that sort of thing.

We ignore the ableist barriers we have “normalized” in academia (Dolmage, 2017) and

STEM (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). We socially marginalize, stigmatize, discredit, and devalue

people with dis/abilities in engineering culture (Cech, 2021). Dolmage (2017) argues that “The

ethic of higher education encourages students and teachers alike to accentuate ability, valorize

perfection, and stigmatize anything that hints at intellectual, mental, or physical weakness.”

5.3.3. Social Isolation

In institutions of higher education, social isolation could be described as the feelings of

loneliness and exclusion in the absence of community, social support, meaningful connection,

shared identity, and a sense of belonging or fitting in (Dean, 1961; Rovai & Wighting, 2005).

Belonging is a basic human need (Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Isolation from one’s community is a

36
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a psychological technique used by therapists and patients usually involving
efforts to change patterns in thinking and behavior (American Psychological Association, 2017).
 Page 136

leading reason for leaving higher education (Hascher & Hagenauer, 2010), academia (Rovai &

Wighting, 2005), and STEM (National, A. O. S. E. A., National, A. O. E., Policy, A. G. A., Board, O.

H. E. A. W., Division, O. B. A. S. S., Board, O. S. E., & Committee, O. B. A. O. I., 2016).

5.3.3.1. Hostile environment/chilly climate

As discussed previously, a “chilly climate” describes an inhospitable organizational

climate marked by differential treatment of people who do not fit the norm, such that they are

less valued and included (IGI Global, 2022; Lichtenstein et al., 2014). Hostile or unwelcoming

environments are positively correlated with social and academic withdrawal and isolation

(Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM Federal Coordination in STEM Education

Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021).

Students, faculty, and staff encounter STEM through the environment. They encounter

it through their department and discipline as reflected in the curriculum, classroom, laboratory,

and research experience (National, A. O. S. E. A., National, A. O. E., Policy, A. G. A., Board, O. H.

E. A. W., Division, O. B. A. S. S., Board, O. S. E., & Committee, O. B. A. O. I., 2016). They

encounter the environment through interactions with faculty, staff, and peers, both inside and

outside the classroom. They encounter it in the expectations, behaviors, and beliefs of those

around them. Based on the nature of these interactions, students can be led either to adoption

of a STEM identity and to finding and thriving in a STEM community where there is affirmation

and support, or they can be pushed into isolation, disaffection, or abandonment of their goals

in STEM.”

The participant in Excerpt 4 described how the topic and consideration of dis/ability was

taboo in both their social and physical academic environment. Dis/ability as a topic is excluded
 Page 137

from what people within the participant’s department openly talk about. The tools made

available to individuals within the department as well as the department’s physical space

demonstrated a lack of proactive measures for accessibility. These elements seemed to send a

message that dis/abled people were not welcome in their department. The participant felt

normlessness in the messaging they received from their department regarding dis/ability.

The participant in Excerpt 4 further noted that even after moving to an ADA-compliant

building, it was inconvenient to access the building because of the location and design of

ramps. They further noted the socially isolating nature of the building’s architecture in how it

segregated dis/abled people. A ramp was provided but was not wide enough for multiple

people to travel abreast of one another. Moreover, the ramp was in a less convenient location

than the stairs. The building was a tangible representation of the unwelcoming environment.

Excerpt 4: Unwelcoming messaging

I think it's pretty significant to know that people don't really talk about dis/ability
at all within my program. I know there are other students that I'm friends with
that also have invisible dis/abilities but that's kind of a conversation that we
keep between like us (and our professors in classes if it impacts our work). But
for the most part, it just isn't really talked about which is a little odd considering
our program claims to value diversity, equity, and inclusion. Dis/ability still feels
like something that's kind of taboo. No matter how open we are with our peers
about it, bringing it into this academic space still feels like something we
shouldn't do.

To be quite honest, our culture is not encouraging or welcoming of people with

dis/abilities. I've noticed that our physical lab space, research group practices,
and our department, in general, do not take proactive measures for accessibility.
They don't use or offer live transcription. Even just the way the building is set up
assumes dis/abled people won’t enter our space. Even after we moved to an
ADA-compliant building, the ramp is all the way over there and it's like a zigzag.
Why? Why? Why do they always make it a zigzag? The location and size of the
ramp would prevent a student from traveling alongside a professor or even a
friend while having a conversation.
 Page 138

5.3.3.2. Forced removal

Environmental messaging was not the only element contributing to the participant’s

experience of a hostile environment. The participant in Excerpt 5 also described having to leave

their community to attend graduate school. It can be frowned upon for students to attend

graduate school at the same institution where they received their undergraduate degree(s)

(Sinclair, 2019). Indeed, this perspective is present at multiple levels of academia. The

appointment of faculty members who graduated from the institution employing them is

referred to as “academic inbreeding” (Altbach et al., 2015). “Academic inbreeding” is thought

to reinforce existing power structures, values, and norms (Altbach et al., 2015). Hiring post-

doctoral scholars and faculty externally is thought to bring about innovation as it has the

potential to recruit diverse perspectives trained in diverse approaches to research (Altbach et

al., 2015). However, the tendency to hire externally privileges those from individualist cultures

over those of collectivistic cultures. It may promote diversity of thought within the white, male,

able-body-minded professoriate. However, it forces individuals from “other” backgrounds to

either be excluded from academia or socially isolate themselves from their own communities.

The participant in Excerpt 5 described the pain they felt being socially isolated away

from their community. They explained how painful it was to not be recognized for who they

are. They felt normlessness in that they did not receive the empathy and understanding they

valued.

Excerpt 5: Separation from community

I feel really isolated in my graduate program. It's very overwhelming for me to

think about my community and not being a part of it. It is so painful to
experience the complete opposite. Yet, I'm still the same person with the same
 Page 139

drive and passion and same empathy and understanding. I don't really feel seen
for who I am. It’s really hard.

5.3.3.3. Abuse

Even when individuals find support from some peers they may find other peers to be

the source of daily reminders of stigma (Wofford & Blaney, 2021). Such reminders, also known

as “microaggressions” contribute to a less than inclusive environment (Wofford & Blaney,

2021). Dr. Derald Wing Sue (2010) described microaggressions as the brief yet commonplace

daily verbal, non-verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities—whether intentional or

unintentional—which communicate layered, hostile, derogatory, or negative slights,

invalidations, and insults to an individual or group; however, Dr. Ibram X. Kendi (2019) refers to

the cumulative insults and indignities as “abuse” as the daily low hum of abuse is not minor nor

merely aggression as the term “microaggression” would imply.

STEM academics (students, staff, and faculty) from underrepresented backgrounds must

navigate the exhausting process of interpreting and negotiating such “abuse” from their peers,

authorities, and community members (E. Cech, 2021; Mitchell, 2014). This exhaustion is

referred to as “battle fatigue.” Battle fatigue originally referred to the burden endured by

encountering racialized abuse (Mitchell, 2014); however, the term has since been extended to

refer to other forms of abuse (Beardmore, 2022a; E. Cech, 2021).

The participants in this study recounted experiencing daily abuse. Excerpt 6 shares how

a participant recalled witnessing people in power mock requests for accommodations. Please

note the accommodation process is described in Chapter 1. They noted how this felt frustrating

and painful. They noted how such normlessness made them hesitate to disclose their own

identity to request accommodations from professors.

 Page 140

Excerpt 6: Comments about dis/ability in STEM

Some professors even make fun of student accommodations. I've actually had
professors in the middle of class say “if you need accommodations we can get
you accommodations. We've gotten the craziest accommodations that we've
had to do for people. And you know I just think they're really crazy. But we got
them for students.” They just made it seem really abnormal that somebody
might need more time. And it's just really frustrating and painful to feel like your
need for accommodation might be made into an amusing anecdote for the next
class. That feels really bad and makes you less likely to request an
accommodation from a professor.

All through [name of non-STEM field] school, I had teachers who would say
things like … I had a [STEM subject] professor, who said "Don't worry kids.
Nobody's ever failed this test that didn't have a major mental illness.” And
meanwhile they're like five of us sitting in the audience and we all know each
other. We're just like…"I guess I'm screwed then.” So there was a lot of that.

The battle fatigue that accompanies such abuse lowers self-esteem, increases feelings of

anger and suppresses immunity (Mitchell, 2014; Morton & Parsons, 2018). This can lead to

increased sickness, tension headaches, trembling and jumpiness, anxiety, depression, ulcers,

insomnia, nightmares, difficulty thinking or speaking coherently, chronic pain in healed injuries,

and elevated blood pressure (E. Cech, 2021; Mitchell, 2014). This may also yield

counterproductive behaviors such as self-isolation, attrition, and lack of engagement (Morton &

Parsons, 2018; Tan, 2022).

Students experiencing such abuse may feel they are not recognized for their unique

identities and characteristics. Rather, they may be recognized only in terms of stereotypes

(National, A. O. S. E. A., National, A. O. E., Policy, A. G. A., Board, O. H. E. A. W., Division, O. B. A.

S. S., Board, O. S. E., & Committee, O. B. A. O. I., 2016). Excerpt 7 presents how a participant felt

like an imposter in multiple ways regarding various aspects of their identity. They discussed not

being recognized in the way they wanted to be recognized and the abuse that they experienced

from racially “passing”.

 Page 141

Excerpt 7: It doesn't matter; you are white passing

I think people who come from different backgrounds and are a little more
diverse or part of like you know LGBTQIA are the minority here. So I think we
kind of keep to our local corner of ourselves. Because it just feels weird to be in a
program that claims to advocate for diversity that is so filled with white
cis[gender] people. I think people are kind of just ignorant and say ignorant
things. I don't know if it's on purpose or because they don't know anything... I
don't know.

One of the things that I struggle with is that I am half-white and so that leads to a
lot of cultural identity problems for me. I'm not entirely fluent in Spanish, so I
feel like an imposter. People would just look at me weirdly and make fun of me
for using Spanish pronunciations. My dad's fully white and my mom's fully
[Nationality], so they don't get it. I have a brother and he's never really had an
issue with his identity in the same way that I do. I didn't figure that out until this
year when my cousin just looked at me and said "he's a dude. He's not gonna
have the same problems.” My brother is a white-passing man. His life is gonna
be so much easier. [...] There is definitely a lot of imposter syndrome for me.

For the most part, the students in my program are really great but there are just
these comments that happen a lot. I remember one time, this guy just looked at
me and asked "What are you?” and I was just like "a human?”. He was trying to
ask me about ethnicity, and he had no clue how to phrase that… It's just a totally
foreign subject that everyone has no idea how to address. I have this other
friend in the program who taught English in [Spanish-speaking country] for two
years and is totally fluent in Spanish... which it's just like... this white chick from
[Redacted name of state]. It gets a little dicey between me and her sometimes
because she's just a little weird in a cultural appropriation kind of way. I
remember, at one point I was at a party with her and someone called the cops. I
got really nervous and she was like "oh it doesn't matter you’re White passing"
and I was like "thanks.” Wonderful. You know it's just things like that, comments
like that, just happen, a lot.

If you want to succeed, you have to whitewash yourself because, of course,

there are stupid clicks. A lot of my Latino friends feel a lot of microaggressions
from their peers. People don't talk about the exclusionary behavior as much
[referring to people in undergrad as opposed to grad]. They don't need to say
anything because they can just exclude you in their own way. It's just a tough
time. It's just a tough time.

Last year it was just me, a [race] girl, and the rest of the people were white.
There was not much in the way of any sort of other diversity. We have a lot more
 Page 142

Latino students in my graduate program this year. That made me feel like I fit in
more… I have a much better sense of community and feel way less isolated than
I did. The new students were super nice to me. They are understanding that I am
afraid to speak Spanish because I'm worried about judgment.

This Story highlights how students can feel forced to censor themselves to fit in. The

participant discussed the exacerbation they felt when people downplayed or minimized their

experiences. The Story also highlights the opportunity increased representation brings to a

sense of belonging. This Story not only highlights social isolation but also powerlessness in that

others hold the power to dictate what identity the participant is allowed to claim. Additionally,

it highlights normlessness and its impact on the students’ identity, especially when they are the

“only one.” Discussing the relationship with the STEM environment and identity is outside of

the scope of this chapter.

5.3.3.4. Stereotype threat

Stereotypes are widely held yet overly simplified presumptions of an individual or group

based on limited knowledge and understanding of that individual or group (Morton & Parsons,

2018). Stereotypes are made when someone groups individuals together based on some factor

and makes a judgment about them without knowing them (National Education Association,

2022). There is a stereotype of the STEM professional being a white male. Women students and

students from underrepresented backgrounds face stereotypes related to the socio-cultural

association with white males in STEM disciplines. People not fitting the white male stereotype

are percieved as less competent (Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM Federal

Coordination in STEM Education Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021). When the

representation of “other” identities is low or absent from STEM spaces, such stereotypes go
 Page 143

unchallenged. This can lead to an increase in stereotype threat. Lamb et al. (2022) define

stereotype threat as “the pervasive concern of affirming negative stereotype ascribed to a non-

dominant group.”

The normlessness created by such stereotypes often prevents women and individuals

from underrepresented groups from pursuing STEM careers (Interagency Working Group on

Inclusion in STEM Federal Coordination in STEM Education Subcommittee on STEM education,

2021). Stereotypes can be particularly threatening given the history of science being used to

promote racist ideology and inferiority of Black people (Morton & Parsons, 2018), e.g., eugenics

as previously discussed in Chapter 2. Such stereotypes also threaten to impact the students

who do pursue STEM education.

Studies have also found that Black male students experiencing stereotype-based abuse

(e.g., being treated as criminally deviant or intellectually inferior), were less likely to feel a

connection with white professors at Predominantly White Institutions (PWI)s. They were less

likely to seek academic assistance from faculty. They were more likely to experience

performance anxiety and more likely to have feelings of isolation that inhibited their academic

performance (Morton & Parsons, 2018).

Isolated graduate students facing stereotype threat often feel they must engage in a

proving process. C. M. Campbell et al. (2018) describe the proving process as the phenomenon

at PWIs when high-achieving Black students feel they have to demonstrate their intelligence.

That is, they must work extra hard (they must go “above and beyond”) to prove they are “good

enough” to be a graduate student and assuage their feelings of loneliness. This normative

pressure exacerbates barriers faced by oppressed groups. The proving process often requires
 Page 144

the dis/abled, queer, raced, and gendered body-mind to take on greater burdens and make

greater sacrifices to comply with the strict expectations of compliance with monochronic time

(Cepeda, 2021; Mendez, 2022).

Similarly, dis/ability carries the stigma of being unprepared, incapable, and a liability

(Peterson, 2021). This commonly held implicit bias is especially prevalent in academic

departments, where a reference to less apparent dis/abilities such as mental illness is

considered a “kiss of death” in the graduate application process (Appleby & Appleby, 2006). In

particular, students with mental health dis/abilities may anticipate others will respond with

discrimination and prejudice and thus choose to avoid disclosure (Grimes et al., 2020). Since the

accommodation process requires disclosure, dis/abled people find themselves having to prove

they are both capable of doing their work and “dis/abled enough” to need accommodations

(Peterson, 2021).

When nonnormative individuals do pursue postsecondary education, the stigma of living

with a mental health issue may impact their learning. Grimes (2020) found that some students’

perception of mental health stigma was so strong that they refused to disclose their dis/ability,

even though that meant they could not receive dis/ability accommodations. Some students

even persisted in nondisclosure to the point of failing courses and subsequent loss of desire to

continue persisting in their degree (Grimes et al., 2020).

The reluctance to seek help from instructors due to mental health stigma extends to

students’ peer interactions (Grimes et al., 2020). The stigma negatively impacted students’

willingness and ability to approach other students for assistance. Grimes (2020) notes that

dis/abled students who had not disclosed their dis/ability felt there was less opportunity to
 Page 145

engage in peer support. The reduced support for learning due to reduced peer and social

networks negatively impacted students’ grades (Grimes et al., 2020).

***Content warning: suicidal ideation

The participant in Excerpt 8 describes the impact their graduate program’s climate had

on their mental health. They described being triggered by their course content and

experiencing flashbacks for the first time. They described not wanting to be on campus alone.

They described feeling vulnerable, powerless, and unsafe during flashbacks. They were afraid

someone might take advantage of them during such a state. Yet they described how having

their dog, boyfriend, or a friend could make all the difference. Unfortunately, they were also

reluctant to ask for such company as they did not want to overwhelm their boyfriend.

Excerpt 8: STEM influence on suicidality

I was almost asymptomatic until I started [graduate degree program]. And

[subject] and [subject] were super triggering for me, so I went from an
occasional nightmare to suicidal in a very short amount of time.
Okay, so this is my first year ever having flashbacks and, like the fact that I've had
so many in two months... I'm scared to go outside. I'm literally afraid to go
anywhere without my dog, boyfriend, or a friend. Even [when] I was on campus
yesterday, I was starting to shake because I was scared. What if I have one
[referring to flashback]? Well, in my head... it was getting to me. If I have one
[referring to flashback] and, like no one's able to help me or, worse, someone
takes advantage of me, what do I do? I started to get very in my head as I’m just
going to go home because I felt like throwing up… I just came home, and I was
still really shaken by it. But I also don't want to affect my boyfriend. He's helped
me with everything but I noticed that he gets very overwhelmed too. I got home,
and I was going to do some work, but I wasn't even really working I was just like
scrolling on my laptop because I need to calm down. I just need to make sure
that I feel more calm. Obviously the environment isn't helping—I really love
being in school, studying, working, all of that.

Alienating environments impact our quality of life. They keep us from meeting our basic

human needs. We know suicidal ideation is common in STEM fields. According to a 2012 CDC
 Page 146

survey, Architecture and Engineering are in the top 5 occupations with the highest rates of

suicide (Industrial Equipment News, 2016). Nearly 25 percent of engineers in a U.K. study have

considered self/harm or suicide (McBride-Wright, 2022). We also know that suicidal ideation is

common in STEM academic programs (Sutherland, 2021). The Guardian web article Academia is

built on exploitation. We must break this vicious circle states “Mental health issues for Ph.D.

students are so common, they could almost be considered part and parcel of the qualification”

(Academics anonymous, 2018). Nearly half of the STEM Ph.D. students at the University of

California, Berkley were depressed in 2015 (Bernstein, 2015). A 2010 survey of mid-Atlantic

universities found that 12 percent of student respondents had thought about committing

suicide (Sudikoff, 2011). Youth.Gov (2022) reports alarming statistics about teenage suicide

attempts:

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among the nation’s teenagers.1 In
2019, one out of every five youth reported seriously considering attempting
suicide, and one out of every eleven actually made a suicide attempt. 2 For some
groups of youth—including youth who are involved in the juvenile justice and
child welfare systems; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBTQ+);
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN); and military service members—the
incidence of suicidal behavior is even higher.3

We also know that the Covid-19 pandemic has triggered a 25% increase in the

prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide (World Health Organization, 2022). As

someone who has struggled with suicidal ideation, I feel that suicide is the ultimate form of

alienation. A successful suicide attempt is an all-consuming, all-encompassing dis/ability, to say

the least. It is alienation from life. Thus, it is critically important for STEM academics to address

this problem (Tan, 2022).

***End content warning: suicidal ideation

 Page 147

5.3.3.5. Representation

This experience shows how the lack of a support system can exacerbate isolation. It

demonstrates how lack of community connection, not being recognized for who a person is,

and a lack of support can make it harder to persist and succeed in higher education

(Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM Federal Coordination in STEM Education

Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021). This is especially true when a student’s family and

friends have no experience navigating higher education and the student lacks supportive peers

in the college setting (Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM Federal Coordination in

STEM Education Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021). However, the participant in Excerpt

9 described how helpful it would have been to know they were not alone, that they were not

the only one going through dis/abilities. They decided to be the representation they needed

and how that they have helped other people openly disclose their dis/abilities and advocate for

their needs.

Excerpt 9: Being representation

And there's one [interview probe] that says "How would you describe the level
of collaboration, support, or inclusion, you are offered?... the empathy and
community, acceptance, respect, and belonging that you felt in the academic
environment?” At the beginning, it was very hard, I don't think that a lot of
faculty and staff had encountered somebody who was on the surface, "good",
under the surface, "not so good.” And I can't fault them for that, because, if
you're in a department that doesn't usually deal much with social stuff,
"dis/abilities", that sort of thing. When you're really not exposed to it—that can
only explain their ignorance, so far, though... I recognize that we're getting
better. I think that the beginning… it was hard. I say this, all the time, but I mean
it so much: I was really closed off about it. And didn't really want to talk about
my dis/abilities. But eventually I hit that breaking point where I just had that...
PCOS bout... and I said to myself, "It would have been really great if I knew that
others were going through this.” So I kind of forced the department to address it,
and just being very, very visible myself. I like to talk about it. I will sit down with
anybody who feels like they're not being heard and I will hear them and I will
 Page 148

help them advocate for themselves and I will also advocate for them if they feel
like they need an additional ally. I definitely see a shift in the department, ever
since. I can't take responsibility for all of it, but I can say that, before me, it didn't
seem like they were getting a lot of information on dis/abilities….

The last few years of my graduate career my lab really filled out with a lot of
different individuals. And they were like, “If you didn’t say anything I wouldn’t
have the strength to also be up front and disclose my problems.” Having that
visible component (being open and out about my dis/abilities), I think, really
helped a lot of my peers. Being the one to say to my advisor “I have a huge”—
pardon my French—“ a huge fucking headache. I cannot be here today. And I will
not be here today.” It was really good to show that some days you just can't. I
think pushing through it sometimes gives people a false sense that maybe things
aren't so bad, and you can just power through them. That's just not possible. So,
especially later on in my graduate career, I became a little bit more willing to be
like “I just can't today. I'm so sorry. Bye.”

Dis/ability representation, especially that of multiply marginalized dis/abled academics,

has the potential to raise awareness regarding the exclusionary requirements embraced in a

culture of productivity (Kerschbaum et al., 2017). When a student is underrepresented in their

environment as occurred in the participant’s experience in Excerpt 9, their identities are more

salient (Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM Federal Coordination in STEM

Education Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021). This can lead to social isolation in multiple

ways. Social isolation within systems of oppression such as racism, ableism, and heterosexism

produce negative associations and stereotypes of people from non-dominant identity groups

(Morton & Parsons, 2018). These negative associations are amplified for people from multiple

underrepresented identities (e.g., Black women) (Morton & Parsons, 2018).

Malone and Barabino (2009) demonstrated that when a person perceives themselves to

be the “only one” (e.g., the only Black person), especially when racial identity is highly

susceptible to external factors, “Black racial identity can lead to feelings of isolation,

marginalization, and undervaluing” (Morton & Parsons, 2018). Perceiving the context as
 Page 149

unsupportive led students to experience negative psychological well‐being (Morton & Parsons,

2018). The participant in Excerpt 10 noted how knowing they were not the “only one” was

helpful. It was helpful to know they were not the only engineering graduate student

experiencing dis/ability. They appreciated that I shared my identity with them even though we

did not attend the same school.

Excerpt 10: Not the only one

Yeah it's nice to have allies across the United States. Sometimes it's a little bit
frustrating to think that you're like the only one [with dis/abilities], and
especially in academia, where there's nobody out and about, especially in
engineering. So it's great. It's great to have met you. I'm so happy that you
shared with me what you did…

Representation can make environments more welcoming. It can foster a sense of

community and inclusion. People may become more aware of the assumptions they make

about specific groups of people when encountering and getting to know individuals from those

identity groups.

5.4. Concluding remarks

When we obfuscate the inclusion of graduate students with dis/abilities, we actively

encourage their exclusion. Excluding diverse voices limits our creativity, innovation, harmony,

and progress. These situations and feelings described in this chapter may be shared by

students, irrespective of discipline, graduate status, and/or dis/ability status. If we want to

interrupt and dismantle ableism in STEM, we need to start by exposing how individuals with

dis/abilities are experiencing ableism and oppression.

As Excerpt 1 through Excerpt 10 demonstrate, dimensions of alienation (powerlessness,

normlessness, and social isolation) impact each other. They compound on one another to
 Page 150

cyclically drive increases in academic alienation and disengagement. Ahmadi et al. (2021) found

that tertiary paramedical students in Iran felt a lack of personal control in the learning process

and did not recognize the legitimacy of the learning process. These students isolated

themselves from others and disengaged in the learning process. In other words, Ahmadi found

that students who felt powerlessness and normlessness socially isolated themselves and

participated in self-alienating behavior. Atnafu (2012) noted that female 10th-grade students in

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, lacked social support from peers and teachers. These students perceived

themselves as having no real power and perceived their work as having no real meaning. They

could think of no reason for continuing to be involved and disengaged from the learning

process. In other words, socially isolated students felt powerless and normless in their

academic environment and participated in self-alienating behavior.

The purpose of this Chapter was to identify if and how dis/abled STEM graduate

students experience the powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation dimensions of

alienation. The purpose of the dissertation and the process that motivated the purpose of this

Chapter are discussed in Chapter 1. Chapter 1 also describes how the focus of this study is on

the experiences of intersectional students who are dis/abled rather than on the participants'

experiences with dis/ability. That is, the exploration of this alienation in this study is not likely

to be unique to dis/abled individuals. Studies have indicated that dis/abled students may be the

first to be affected by practices that ultimately may impact all students (Jacklin, 2011). My aim

in studying the experiences of dis/abled students in this Chapter is to identify how alienation

may be impacting not only dis/abled students but students embodying a variety of

nonnormative and normative identities. By identifying how dis/abled students are affected by
 Page 151

alienating environments I hope to create a starting point for further exploration regarding the

impacts of alienating environments on all postsecondary students.

 Page 152

CHAPTER 6. CULTURE OF PRODUCTIVITY

Exploring the experiences of dis/abled STEM graduate students in a culture of productivity

Those who cannot or will not conform to the ideology of the ideal human in our culture

of productivity are excluded from STEM. Lacking the diversity in experience, thought, and

problem-solving that diverse professionals and academics (students, staff, and faculty) bring to

STEM impedes our society’s progress to a better world. The purpose of this chapter is to

explore the experiences of dis/abled STEM graduate students navigating the culture of their

disciplines through a neoliberal-critical, ableism-critical lens. This chapter interweaves a

discussion with quotes from a series of interviews. This chapter illuminates how seven

participants experienced and were impacted by five aspects of a “culture of productivity”:

efficiency, the illusion of choice, the fear of dis/ability, apathy, and competition. The

participant’s words demonstrate how the effects of relentless demands for competition,

efficiency, and production can limit access to graduate education. This chapter elucidates the

structural ableism, racism, sexism, and genderism in STEM culture and the subsequent

devaluation and exclusion of those not fitting the neoliberal ideal.

6.1. Introduction

6.1.1. Problem

The neoliberal political movement has drastically altered higher education in the United

States (Schraedley et al., 2021). Embracing the neoliberal market ethos, the Reagan

administration’s reformation of education through market-driven strategies of deregulation

ignited the ongoing trend of decreases in municipal, state, and federal funding for higher
 Page 153

education (Schraedley et al., 2021). Institutions of postsecondary education in the United States

have come to rely on external funding (Cantwell, 2015). The neoliberal movement in higher

education continues to “increasingly commodify and privatize universities by asserting

economic efficiency, high productivity, anti-unionism, the extraction of value from both

students and instructors, and pursue a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy against any kind of

collective resistance by the powerful means of meritocratic ideology” (Briziarelli & Flores, 2018,

p. 114).

Under this edict, the employment and livelihood of faculty and those employed by

faculty have come to depend on a faculty member’s ability to secure highly competitive

external grant funding. Postsecondary institutions and the individuals comprising them have

constructed informal expectations and reciprocal formalized policies, rules, and governance

reinforcing the “Publish or Perish” organizational culture (Mendoza, 2007). Under

neoliberalism, the purpose of postsecondary education has shifted from the generation of

knowledge toward the generation of revenue (Briziarelli & Flores, 2018; Olsen et al., 2020).

This shift to neoliberal forms of production has led academia to commoditize labor

(Foster & Wass, 2013). This in turn has normalized the relentless demands for competition,

efficiency, and production—regardless of circumstances (Olsen et al., 2020). The neoliberal

approach promotes the exploitation of anyone with less power such as Ph.D. students,

postdoctoral scholars, adjunct professors, and staff (Academics anonymous, 2018).

The shift from community-based enterprises to factory-based organizations has been

identified as a significant turning point in the devaluation of dis/abled people (Foster & Wass,

2013; Oliver, 1990). Neoliberalism promotes an ideal of extreme individualism. It creates the
 Page 154

expectation that individuals make an enterprise of themselves (Dudley-Marking & Baker, 2012).

It encourages employees to sacrifice work-life balance (Kossek et al., 2021) and prioritize their

work over personal responsibilities and interests (Mendez, 2022).

Institutions of higher education measure the value of academics by the productivity of

their labor—where academic productivity compares the physical and mental labor an academic

expends to the socially necessary labor time (Briziarelli & Flores, 2018). In other words,

academics must conform to the institutions' assumptions regarding the amount of time

“required” to produce an article under the “normal” conditions of production with the

“average” degree of skill and intensity (Marx, 1867). This ideal has heralded the establishment

of ableist norms, often situated around the lifestyles of those already in power, able-body-

minded men (Fox, 2020).

Success in academia has come to be measured by standardized criteria within the

established organizational logic. Institutions value those whose body-minds are percieved as

the most viable means to production. This has elevated the idea of the ideal academic: those

with unfettered access and unlimited resources to dedicate to work (Fox, 2020).

Under the extreme individualism of neoliberalism, anything preventing a worker from

meeting such criteria is considered a personal failing that must be overcome in order to fully

participate (Dudley-Marking & Baker, 2012; Olsen et al., 2020). If adjustments are required to

enable a worker to perform a job, this variation to the standardized criteria would inevitably

conflict with established organizational logic (Foster & Wass, 2013). The worker who deviates

from the ableist norm is, therefore, effectively dis/abled as a consequence of dominant

organizational ideas (Fox, 2020; Olsen et al., 2020). As Dolmage (2017) argues, “the ethic of
 Page 155

higher education encourages students and teachers alike to accentuate ability, valorize

perfection, and stigmatize anything that hints at intellectual, mental, or physical weakness.”

Such organizational ideas empower institutions of higher education to blame individuals

for their failure to achieve success (Hursh, 2008). Indeed, using accommodations such as the

Family Medical Leave Act can be stigmatized and have negative downstream consequences on

an academic career (Kossek et al., 2021). The neoliberal ethos empowers institutions to exclude

dis/abled people (Hursh, 2008; Olsen et al., 2020). Further, it empowers institutions to

perpetuate the discriminatory tyrannies of normalcy against dis/abled people (Hursh, 2008;

Olsen et al., 2020). Normalcy can be described as “constituting, conforming to, not deviating or

different from, the common type or standard, regular, usual” (L. J. Davis, 1995). Thus, success in

academia is often situated in direct conflict with dis/ability (L. J. Davis, 1995; Fox, 2020;

Goodley, 2014).

6.1.2. Theoretical Framing

6.1.2.1. Capitalism

Capitalism, grounded in the motive to make a profit, is often thought of as “an economic

system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and

demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of

society” (Jahan & Saber Mahmud, 2017). Neoliberalism, also known as free market theory, is a

capitalist model (Ganti, 2014). Neoliberalism is a political, economic, and ideological movement

that positions the well-being of individuals as being best advanced by institutional freedom,

deregulation, privatization, and competition (Dudley-Marking & Baker, 2012; D. Harvey, 2005).
 Page 156

It champions free market exchange, as well as its values of competition and self-interest, as the

ethic that should be used to guide all human actions (Ganti, 2014). Unlike some of the other

capitalist models, neoliberalism emphasizes the deregulation of the economy, the liberalization

of trade and industry, and the privatization of state-owned enterprises (Ganti, 2014).

6.1.2.2. Culture

Historically, cultures have been conceptualized as “ways of acting, thinking, and being in

the world” (Martain 1998 as cited by Flemming et al., 2018); however, more recently they have

been more commonly defined in terms of the key images that dominate the culture (Flemming

et al., 2018). Such an approach helps people understand one another in relation to how they

respond to dominant images existing within small subcultural communities and large scales

across broader cultural populations (G. Downey, 2008).

Members of organizations, companies, disciplines, and professions often organize

themselves informally, establishing norms, symbols, and codes of conduct (Leonardi, 2003).

This creates what is called an organizational culture (Leonardi, 2003). Individuals within

occupational disciplines share similar identities and values that transcend specific

“organizational” settings (Leonardi, 2003). Such cultures demand performative conformity to

the culture as defined by those in power (McIlwee & Robinson, 1992).

Organizational cultures are often examined through conflict-structural, interactionist,

and socialization lenses as proposed by McIlwee & Robinson (1992) (Flemming et al., 2018;

Leonardi, 2003). The conflict-structural theoretical approach frames organizational cultures as

products of not only the structure and processes of the occupational discipline but also the

relations of power that have created and maintained those structures (McIlwee & Robinson,
 Page 157

1992). The conflict-structural lens contends with the individuals and groups with conflicting

interests that seek power, status, resources, and wealth (McIlwee & Robinson, 1992).

Recognizing that organizations are also constituted by relationships and day-to-day interactions

between people, the interactional lens positions culture as a form of impression management

(McIlwee & Robinson, 1992). Recognizing the role of socialization allows for the interrogation of

the different interactional resources afforded through socialization structures (McIlwee &

Robinson, 1992). The socialization lens also allows for the interrogation of the power relations

and self-interest around which the profession or discipline is structured (McIlwee & Robinson,

1992).

Combining these lenses lends scholars the ability to interrogate culture in terms of the

impressions individuals make. The values, norms, and style of discourse individuals perceive to

be accepted by the profession help scholars understand the culture and the relations of power

that upholds the culture. Combining these three lenses has the benefit of framing the attitudes

and behaviors within a discipline as the products and causes of the power dynamics within

multiple spheres of influence, e.g., the family, the classroom, the workplace, and the political

system (McIlwee & Robinson, 1992).

6.1.2.3. The STEM disciplinary culture

We ignore the ableist barriers we have “normalized” in academia (Dolmage, 2017) and

STEM (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021). We socially marginalize, stigmatize, discredit, and devalue

people with dis/abilities in engineering (Cech, 2021), science (Morton & Parsons, 2018), and

STEM (Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM Federal Coordination in STEM

 Page 158

Education Subcommittee on STEM education, 2021) cultures. The STEM academic culture of

productivity prioritizes output, efficiency, and competition (Edwards & Roy, 2017).

Literature on engineering provides a great example of the oppressive culture in STEM

disciplines. “From their first days in an engineering school, engineers are indoctrinated with the

values and beliefs of the engineering community” (Leonardi, 2003, p. 4). Engineering school and

professional practice teach students how to work, think, and behave as a “good engineer”

(Leonardi, 2003). While engineers have varied orientations and work within a multitude of

contexts, most engineers orient their identities and careers around their occupation rather than

their workplace. This highlights the role “engineering culture” plays in the formation and

maintenance of engineering values, practices, and norms (Leonardi, 2003).

Another example of STEM culture can be found in the framing of engineers as problem

solvers (Flemming et al., 2018). Such an image encapsulates and builds upon McIlwee and

Robinson’s (1992) widely recognized image of engineering culture. McIlwee and Robinson

(1992) position engineering culture within three paradigms: (1) An ideology that stresses the

centrality of technology, and positions engineers as both the designers/innovators and

producers/makers of technology; (2) the acquisition of power through the means of control

over technology as the foundation of engineering success; and (3) a self-centered “macho”

belief in the value of engineers and need to “defend” the profession from “invaders.” Thus the

culture of engineering positions engineers as problem solvers and often demands aggressive

displays of technical ability, self-promotion, and self-confidence (McIlwee & Robinson, 1992).

Within this image, engineers are “programmed” to follow a strict problem-solving

process that will provide “the right answer” with little to no thought about “who they are
 Page 159

solving their problems for” (G. L. Downey & Lucena, 2018). Historians critique engineers as

“servants of the dominant class in society…at the disposal of those with significant power

(corporations)” (Flemming et al., 2018). Under this image, Downey (2008) notes how engineers

must hide their feelings in order to be perceived as a “good” engineer. Further, Downey (2008)

argues that the indoctrination process of problem-solving is “precisely about making the bulk of

one’s identity invisible in one’s work.” Some scholars argue that the curricula of “weed out”

courses force engineering students to develop machine-like habits to conform to the assembly-

line way of life (G. L. Downey & Lucena, 2018; Flemming et al., 2018). Downey & Lucena (2018)

describe how engineering students are forced to shape the “work self” as their primary identity

subordinating and/or sacrificing any other aspects of their identity that do not fit the ideal

“engineering self.” They observe that weed-out courses serve a dual purpose of “weeding out”

those who do not succeed under the required workload and adversity as well as “weeding out”

part of the humanity of those who conform to such demands (G. L. Downey & Lucena, 2018).

Flemming et al. (2018) bluntly ask “How can one be an effective, reliable, consistent, low-

variability, and an efficient cog in a corporate wheel unless he or she [they] brings as little of his

or her humanity to the world as humanly possible?”.

Yet another example of the oppressive culture in STEM is the legacy of eugenics in

science (Glaudell, 2021). The ongoing legacy of eugenics, ableism, and racism in science is

further described in Chapter 2. Glaudell (2021, p. 1888) reminds academics and scientists that

“the tools we believe help us to create a meritocracy (IQ tests, standardized testing, school

rankings, application sorting algorithms, hiring practices, etc.) are the tools of eugenics

designed to reward white, able-bodied men in a measure of identity not merit.”

 Page 160

6.1.3. Purpose

This chapter explores the experiences of dis/abled STEM students who cannot or will

not conform to the dominant cultural image of “productivity” and the “ideal academic.” This

chapter builds upon McIlwee & Robinson’s theoretical framework of engineering culture by

analyzing the experiences of the participants through a lens critical of neoliberalism and

ableism. I aim to interrogate the complexities of interlocking systems of oppression within

STEM academic cultures and elucidate barriers to students who may not fit the image of the

“ideal academic.”

6.1.4. Research Questions

1. To what extent is a culture of productivity evident in how dis/abled STEM graduate

students describe the culture of their academic program, discipline, or department?

2. What themes related to a culture of productivity can be discerned from the experiences

of dis/abled STEM graduate students?

3. If and how are dis/abled graduate students experiencing and being impacted by a

culture of productivity in the STEM academic environment?

6.2. Methods

Chapter 3 addresses the study design and methods used in collecting and analyzing the

data presented in this chapter. Chapter 4 describes this study’s participants. The results in

Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 are each presented in a different manner. Chapter 3
 Page 161

includes the majority of the description regarding the presentation of results; however, a few

key parts are repeated below.

I present the results of this study as collective Stories. I amalgamate the experiences of

the seven participants into a composite form to highlight both the collective meaning and

aspects of variation in the participants’ collective experiences. I chose this means of

presentation because it is appropriate for representing a range of experiences and it adds a

layer of protection to the participants’ anonymity (Jarrett & Light, 2019).

This chapter presents a single narrative that represents the experiences of multiple

participants. I present a series of block quotes interwoven within the discussion. I offset

segments of the Story with left and right full paragraph indentation. Most, but not all,

paragraphs within the narrative represent the words of a single participant. I prioritize the use

of clean verbatim quotes in the construction of the narrative. However, I also paraphrase some

of the participants’ statements for conciseness, clarity, and Story cohesion.

I use the phrase “the participant”, pseudonym “Bensabi”, and “she/her” pronouns to

refer to the amalgamated participant in my discussion. “Bensabi” amalgamates the

pseudonyms “Beni” and “Sabi”, chosen by the Phase 1 participants. Since I decided to not use

pseudonyms to refer to individual participants, I did not solicit pseudonyms from Phase 2

participants.

6.3. Findings and Discussion

As previously introduced in this chapter, a culture of productivity can be described as

the pervasive attitude that engenders the result of labor as a commodity and values labor
 Page 162

efficiency over an individual’s needs, preferences, and well-being (Rastogi, 1986; Wofford &

Blaney, 2021). The culture of productivity positions those with the highest means of academic

production with the most power—i.e., “full” professors holding administrative and leadership

positions. These incumbents create the standards by which we measure performance. They

maintain the disciplinary norms that shape faculty members' identity, expertise, and

sociopolitical status. The incumbents become the sole authority on what areas of knowledge

generation are considered valuable (Mendoza, 2007). The power structure of academia

reinforces itself through production circuitry, resource dependencies, and governance regimes

(Slaughter and Rhoades 2004).

Academia, under the culture of productivity, can be likened to a ‘‘pyramid scheme’’

(Cantwell, 2015). It has become a product of itself (Academics anonymous, 2018). A few

members of the organization enjoy high status and rewards while most of the workers provide

the foundation for the system but enjoy few rewards (Cantwell, 2015). Such a scheme

maintains inequity in academic pathways (Fox, 2020). It offers a narrow pathway to the top. It

provides a “tenure track” to those whose body-minds align with the idealized and idolized

“worker” body-mind of the tenured incumbents. As is confident with STEM culture, such a

scheme can serve to “control” who has access to achieving academic success by “defending”

STEM academic programs against “invaders” (McIlwee & Robinson, 1992).

The ideological function of the tenure track prioritizes productivity above all else

(Mendez, 2022). Thus it restricts access to those who do not or cannot fit within the “ideal”

worker norms of productivity (Mendez, 2022). Yet the tenure track serves as a gatekeeper,

obfuscating lines of promotion along lines of race, class, and gender (Fox, 2020). Those at the
 Page 163

top of the pyramid encourage the naturalization of sameness, maintaining a relatively

homogenous group of incumbents (Goodley, 2014).

Under the neoliberal ethos, academics are trained to measure our value or “merit” by

our efficiency (Kumari Campbell, 2008a). Students are “socialized” through interactions with

our faculty advisors, peers, faculty, and staff (Mendoza, 2007). Through this process, we are

educated in the norms, social structures, and disciplinary values of “productivity” (Wofford &

Blaney, 2021). This chapter posits five aspects of a “culture of productivity”: efficiency, the

illusion of choice, the fear of dis/ability, apathy, and competition.

6.3.1. Efficiency

Academia has embraced “meritocracy” to restrict the citizenship of academia to only

those whose labor is productive enough (Erevelles, 2005, 2013). The “weed out” mentality in

STEM programs is widely known (McGee, 2020; Peterson, 2021; Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021).

Weed out classes prevent those who are deemed “undesirable” or “unworthy” from

matriculating into STEM fields. Such an approach concentrates power based on ability

(Dolmage, 2017). It bars the participation of those who think differently, especially those whose

learning process, reading process, thought process, and/or communication of knowledge is not

efficient “enough.”

Bensabi noted how such incumbents often assume that people who deviate from the

normative are broken and incapable of being successful. She recalled observing professors

saying that those who need a certain level of accommodation shouldn’t be in college. She

related what she observed to the weed-out mentality.

 Page 164

People out there that assume if you have a dis/ability you're broken or incapable
of being where you are. They assume you are incapable of succeeding without
extra help. I think those people will always be there…

I have actually overheard professors in the dining hall and off-campus talk about
how if you need a certain level of accommodation, then it's obvious you'd never
be able to succeed professionally and that you shouldn't be in college. So I know
that there's a pretty interesting undercurrent, especially in engineering, with all
of its weed-out mentality.

Similarly, approaches other than those that follow tradition are less likely to be funded

(Answer, 2020) and are often dismissed as having “insufficient merit” (Erevelles, 2013). Such an

educational model emphasizes conformity over creative inquiry (Olsen et al., 2020). Thus

academia has become plagued by neoliberal agendas that prioritize economic viability over the

students it was originally intended to serve (Olsen et al., 2020).

Bensabi funded her studies with a teaching assistantship. She split her time between

taking courses, conducting research, and her employment as a teaching assistant (TA). Her

supervisor expected her to grade 3,000 undergraduate student papers for a large introductory

course. Bensabi did not explain whether or not other TAs had been given similar responsibilities

in the past but she did describe her assignment as atypical. She explained that a typical TA-ship

assignment included duties such as holding study sessions and helping with exams.

Unfortunately, many students waited until the day their papers were due to submit

their assignments. This meant that Bensabi was expected to read and grade 2,000 of the 3,000

papers in two days. Moreover, Bensabi was expected to do so while simultaneously preparing

for a research presentation. She was expected to sacrifice her time. In the words of the

participant, the grading assignment “was a lot.”

 Page 165

As a TA, I had to grade all the papers for [name of large introductory course]. All
of them. I graded around 3,000 papers for my TA-ship… A typical TA-ship for a
teacher has a TA hold study sessions, help with exams, and stuff like that.

It's a lot for one person really. I thought that it was a lot and other graduate
students agreed with me... Most of the students (like 2000 of them) submitted
their papers the day they were due. I had to finish the grading. This was two days
before my research presentation. I didn’t have time to finish my literature
review.

We have built our environments and expectations to “optimize” and “commoditize” the

productive labor of the “ideal” body-mind (Karpicz, 2020). Through our assumed meritocracy,

we have “normalized” ableist and racist barriers in academia (Dolmage, 2017)—especially in

STEM programs (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021).

Those with intersecting non-normative identities (such as dis/abled women and Black

academics) are often perceived as less productive (Kundu, 2003; Sayers, 2012), although hard

numbers do not support those perceptions (Ceci & Williams, n.d.; Judy Jackson, 2004). To be

valued as an academic, non-normative individuals often feel compelled to prove their merit.

The proving process, as described by C. M. Campbell et al. (2018), occurs when high-achieving

Black students feel they have to demonstrate their intelligence. This concept can be extended

to other groups of students from oppressed backgrounds. That is, nonnormative individuals

must work extra hard. They must go “above and beyond” to prove they are “good enough” to

be a graduate student. Internalizing our society’s neoliberal logic, we pursue the self-sufficient

hyper normal (Goodley, 2014). Through our education, we become a product. Yet these ideals

have become so institutionalized that our exploitation is often easily obscured (Erevelles, 2002).

Under a culture of productivity, the exploitation of labor has become commonplace.

This is especially true for the cheap labor of graduate students, staff, and adjunct professors.
 Page 166

Meritocracy demands our sacrifice in prioritizing our work above all else (Mendez, 2022).

Meritocracy simultaneously places normative demands on our time (Cepeda, 2021). Musto

(2010) notes that under contemporary capitalism, one’s leisure time—free and outside of

work—is often absorbed into the mechanisms of production. That is, many people spend their

personal time on their professional work.

Those with nonnormative identities may disproportionately feel pressure to work long

hours (C. M. Campbell et al., 2018). Students, faculty, and staff often feel they must mask

and/or “compensate” for their dis/abilities to be recognized as competent academics (Pearson

& Dickens, 2021). Cepeda (2021) describes spending large amounts of personal time completing

academic tasks at home in order to prove they can “pull [their] weight.”

There is an unspoken expectation in engineering that graduate students must “live” in

the lab and learn through “trial by fire.” Students are expected to learn without guidance,

incremental learning objectives, or instruction on what tools are available and where/how they

can be accessed to prove they deserve to be graduate students. A “trial by fire” is “rigorous” or

“challenging” in that it is physically and emotionally demanding (C. M. Campbell et al., 2018);

however, it does not necessarily promote “challenge” in learning and growth. Such methods

predominantly contribute to the learning and development of “selected” “ideal”-body/minded

students (C. M. Campbell et al., 2018).

Bensabi had asked the professor for extra time for grading the students’ papers. She

explained that she could perform the task but she just needed more time to do so. Bensabi’s

request for help in this instance was queer in that it contradicted the culture of productivity

(Cepeda, 2021).
 Page 167

I told the professor “because of my dis/ability it’s really hard for me to read that
quickly. I'll get through it. I just need some time.” I am competent and capable.
It's just I may not be able to read such a high volume of papers when there's
multiple things to be done in such a quick turnaround time.

I asked for help. I got help. But it was almost like he thought that I was saying, “I
have a dis/ability to hide my incompetency” instead of "I have a dis/ability.”
When I read my TA evaluation, my supervisor said “yeah [she] couldn’t even do it
[herself]. Other people had to help [her].

Given the danger that is often present in disclosure, sharing one’s dis/ability status can

be a difficult thing to bring oneself to do (C. M. Campbell et al., 2018). Disclosing one’s

dis/ability status carries the risk that others will perceive them as less productive and therefore

less worthy of earning an advanced degree or receiving financial support. Researchers are often

forced to conform to ableist expectations and mask their dis/abilities to be perceived as

competent researchers (Pearson & Dickens, 2021).

6.3.2. The illusion of choice

U.S. ideals fetishize productivity at all costs even when productivity causes bodily harm

(Cepeda, 2021). The larger power structures of institutions and society reinforce power

imbalances and exacerbate barriers faced by oppressed groups. These systems of inequity often

require the dis/abled, queer, raced, and gendered body-mind to take on greater burdens and

make greater sacrifices to comply with the strict expectations of compliance with monochronic

time (Cepeda, 2021). These traditional notions of rigor (amount of time, standards, and

quantity of work) are disproportionately detrimental to the physical and mental health of

students from oppressed backgrounds.

 Page 168

Under a culture of productivity, any ways of being, knowing, or doing other than those

supported by the status quo are considered inefficient. They are stigmatized as being deficient.

Stigma often prevents students and faculty alike from disclosing their less apparent dis/abilities

(Grimes et al., 2017, 2020; Sanchez-Pena et al., 2021). Conforming to the expectations of

productivity is often framed as a choice—a decision we must make in how we choose to spend

our time (Cepeda, 2021). As discussed in Chapter 1, funding is often dependent on an

academic’s ability to conform to these norms. Yet, not everyone is “free” to participate

whenever and however they choose (Erevelles, 2002).

Echoing the experiences of Cepeda (2021), Bensabi noted how dis/ability sometimes

limited her “choice” in how she spent her time. Bensabi shared that her dis/abilities sometimes

prevented her from “doing enough work.” The participant described a vicious cycle of trying to

get ahead on her work in anticipation of symptoms flaring up; however, taking on a heavier

workload led to increased stress and a harder time keeping up with her work. She described

how things would pile up.

It's mostly been… God, mental health wise it's been horrible. I've spent a lot of
days lying in bed. My depression will get to me and then I'll be anxious because
I'm not doing enough work. So it's just a really bad combination and then things
just pile up and I have panic disorder, so I have a lot of panic attacks. I've been
getting things done, because that's kind of just how I am, but the amount of
stress that goes into it is now so much more than it was before. Being able to
take care of myself physically and mentally is [sic] just kind of gone down the
drain.

After a series of negative and demeaning interactions with her faculty advisor, Bensabi

made the difficult decision to separate from her lab group. She described how no longer being

in a lab group meant she lost access to funding and healthcare. She described the elevated

stress she felt as her financial instability and debt grew. After asking other faculty members if
 Page 169

they would take her on as a research assistant, she was not able to find a new advisor. She

grappled with the idea that she would be effectively forced out of her career.

Yet even during this stressful period of time, the faculty and staff in her department

expected her to act as if everything was ok. They expected her to perform “productivity.” She

felt judged for “struggling.” She could not act like everything was ok because it was not.

The faculty and staff act like I shouldn’t be stressed out. They act like something
is wrong with me because I am stressed out. They look at me as if they are
thinking “there's something wrong with her because she's going through... you
know she's struggling.” It is almost like it’s abnormal to struggle.

This is how I get paid. Do they not realize they are creating a potential for a
student to become homeless? It's like they don’t realize I’m losing my career
opportunity, my financial stability, my home, and my access to mental
healthcare.

If you're going through all these things that are very stressful for you—losing
your career opportunity, losing your financial stability, losing your mental health
care—losing all of those things and to still be like “Okay, everything is going to be
good.” That's not healthy. I still need to eat.

Acting as if everything wasn’t ok was not an option for the participant. Bensabi

explained how the faculty and staff expected her to act “normal” even when she was not

experiencing “normal” things. She felt pressure from the faculty and staff to conform to their

expectations of student behavior. Bensabi felt pressured to “pass” as “normal.” Passing refers

to concealing one’s identity and/or experience or down-playing the prominence of one’s

identity (E. A. Cech & Waidzunas, 2021; Cross et al., 2022; Goffman, 1963).

Queer, transgender, and nonbinary people often compartmentalize their gender and

sexual identities while engaged in STEM spaces. We often bifurcate our personal and

professional identities and/or increase our performance of “competence” in the field. Doing so

can prevent our identity from being used by our colleagues to question our knowledge.
 Page 170

Yet, for those who “pass”, the effort of passing often comes at a great cost (Cepeda,

2021; Erevelles, 2002). Kumari Campbell (2008a) quotes Kimberlyn Leary (1999, p. 85) to

describe how passing “represents a form of self‐protection that nevertheless usually dis/ables,

and sometimes destroys, the self it means to safeguard.” This can be especially difficult when

individuals are forced to “pass” across multiple identities including dis/ability, race, gender, and

sexuality (Beardmore, 2022a).

Bensabi described not wanting anyone to know what she was going through. She did

not want others to perceive her as “broken” or not good enough. She did not want her

classmates to assume she would not be a good project partner. Bensabi chose nondisclosure to

prevent being ostracized.

When I was younger and especially early on in my graduate career I had a

complex about my invisible dis/abilities. I didn't really want anybody to know
that I was going through anything. I felt like they might interpret it as me being
broken or assume I wouldn’t be a good project partner. I didn’t want to be
ostracized so I just tried to keep that to myself. As time went on though, I
became more willing to disclose that I had these things…

There is often danger in disclosure (Kumari Campbell, 2008a). When we fail to “pass” we

are often “pushed” out (Cross et al., 2022). We leave to prioritize our well-being (Cross et al.,

2022). Critical Queer, dis/ability, and Indigenous theories reject the “drop-out” lens of the

majoritarian deficit narrative (Cross et al., 2022; Goodley, 2014; Waterman, 2019). Rather, they

urge us to consider how people are “pushed” out.

 Page 171

6.3.3. The fear of dis/ability

It can be traumatic to be “pushed” out of a space. A lifetime of being “encouraged” (aka

forced) to strive to be as normal as the ideal is also traumatic. This is especially true for

someone with multiple oppressed identities (Pearson & Dickens, 2021).

Bensabi was pushed out of her lab group. The trauma of the situation impacted her

health. This effectively decreased her “productivity.” The participant experienced fear as she

sensed her ability to pass was waning. She felt a loss of control over her ability to succeed. She

felt a sense of dread regarding the failure she believed might occur if she stopped “scraping.”

She felt an overwhelming convergence of normlessness, powerlessness, and social isolation, as

discussed in Chapter 5.

Sometimes I feel like I have a limited clock of being able to “pass” as a person
without dis/abilities. And then I'm just going to lose it. I don't know what
happens. One of the major points of grad school is to go on and become a
professional in society and if I can't…If I am able to scrape my way through… but
it's just getting worse the whole time… Will I ever stop scraping [by] or will I just
eventually run out of room and just fail for real?

Through meritocracy, academics have come to judge our sense of self and value in

terms of our market economy (Goodley, 2014). We fear being devalued. Thus we fear

dysfunction. We fear dis/ability. We often cling to the belief that we can control our bodies to

distance ourselves from the fear of pain, limitation, suffering, and dying (Wendell, 1996). Our

culture insists we control our bodies. Thus our society blames the dis/abled for failing to control

their bodies, often burdening them with self-doubt and self-blame (Wendell, 1989).

Bensabi described her fear of not being productive enough. She recognized that she

could not do some things in the manner other people do them. She recognized how debilitating
 Page 172

depression had been in her learning journey and in her production as it related to turning in

assignments. Bensabi described not being able to get out of bed some days. Yet she recognized

that did not mean she was undeserving of being a graduate student.

Depression has been very debilitating in my learning journey. Not caring about
anything, it turns out, is kind of bad for turning things in. But yeah, I mean, I also
feel like it is a huge thing. But then I feel like 'is that a dis/ability?' and it gets
really funky because it's like, just like the whole framing of dis/ability in higher
education is around accommodations. It's like, 'what do you need in order to be
successful?” And it's just a strange thing where you're trying to say “I exist and
I'm here and I deserve to get a degree”, and also the sort of recognition that I’m
not able to do the same things that other people can do. I'm slow and I'm sad.
I'm unable to get out of bed some days. And that is a real thing, and maybe I
shouldn't be here, but like if you're just depressed your whole life does that
mean that you don't deserve to do well in school and things?

Bensabi described her fear of continuing to experience depression and mood disorders.

She feared that they might prohibit her from being a “productive member of society.” She

described how this feeling would give way to internalized self-hatred.

With depression and mood disorders, I think, maybe I just have a lot more
internalized self-hatred.... to the point where I kind of feel like if they
[depression and mood disorders] continue to do what they've been doing, or
they get worse, every time then probably eventually, I will not be a productive
member of society. And that's frightening.

Bensabi repeatedly encountered the valuation of efficiency in the STEM academic

environment. Efficiency was reinforced in her interactions with other academics. For example,

when Bensabi was watching the presentations of other graduate students, she observed her

faculty advisor criticizing other students’ research.

During the other student’s presentations, my advisor kept saying very

judgmental things. Hearing “oh that’s why they had a good presentation because
they have this much time” or “What was that? What was that presentation?”
coming from my advisor… Hearing the phrases again and again.
 Page 173

In engineering, “rigor” is often used in graduate programs to mask the underlying

meritocracy. The dominant neoliberal-ableism tradition of doing things “the right way” because

“that’s how it’s always been done” drives academic expectations (C. M. Campbell et al., 2018).

6.3.4. Apathy

When Bensabi reviewed the three prompts in Phase 2, she immediately had a response

for Prompt 2. The prompt was “During your graduate studies, how have you experienced the

culture or climate of your academic environment related to dis/ability and ability?” Bensabi

explained that her program did not really address or talk about dis/ability nor ability. She

believed less than five people in her program cared about dis/ability.

Okay, as far as prompt number two goes, I can probably answer in a sentence,
which is: my program does not have a culture of dis/ability or ability. It says
something that I can count on one hand and not run out of fingers, the number
of people I know who actually care about dis/ability.

The “pyramid” scheme of academia means incumbents can bar those whose means

and/or measures of productivity deviates from their own. The values and priorities of

incumbents often reflect those of the society that empowered them—a society that

marginalizes people based on dis/ability, race, and gender rather than embracing each as a part

of human diversity. The fairly homogeneous group of incumbents often benefit from inequity

and are thus unaware of or unwilling to change the systems of oppression they benefit from

(McRuer, 1998). Thus it is easy for those in power to imagine that someone’s lack of academic

success is the result of personal failings or a lack of entrepreneurial spirit rather than oppressive

power structures (D. Harvey, 2005).

 Page 174

Bensabi attributed the lack of empathy she received from her professors to a lack of

exposure to working with diverse people. She reflected on the ease and allure of not disrupting

the status quo. She believed some people need to experience something or have someone

close to them experience something to have empathy for it.

I think those people will always be there because I think sometimes for some
people, it takes a close example for them to understand and have empathy. It's
sad. That sucks. I think it's just much easier to just go with the flow and not
question things.

The participant expressed her desire to meet a professor (incumbent) who was willing

to start an open dialogue about dis/ability. Everyday conversations can be powerful

mechanisms for organizational change (Mendoza, 2007). Moreover, the participant believed

such conversations, especially if led by dis/abled incumbents, could create room for empathy

and constructive conversations that could help all parties reach their goals for learning and

growth.

We’ve never seen an advisor express their anxiety. We never have an advisor
say, “You know, I'm actually really anxious about us meeting the deadline.” That
kind of vulnerability would create a lot more empathy and room for constructive
conversations. I would pay a lot of money for an experience like that. If an
advisor said something the student could say something like, “I’m also really
anxious about that too. Do you know if there’s anyone that could help?” or “This
is where I am at. I will check in with you tomorrow. Would that help?” or “What
could we do together?”—instead of it just feeling like we're working against each
other. You want to be a successful PI and like you want to have all these amazing
publications and you want your graduate student to successfully graduate. Why
not create a community so that you can work together as a team?

The lack of representation of diverse perspectives has created and continues to

reinforce a rigid consensus of what it means to be “productive” in academia. In systems of

academic production ‘‘Incumbents’’ have the strongest position and the most power to effect

change within their field (Cantwell, 2015). However, incumbents are generally de-incentivized
 Page 175

to effect change as they enjoy the largest share of field spoils and benefit the most from field

stability (Cantwell, 2015). While challengers (e.g., graduate students, adjunct professors, and

staff) can confront incumbents (tenured professors) and cultural norms the power dynamic

significantly disadvantages them.

6.3.5. Competition

Competing for a highly exclusive position in the top echelons of academia, mid and

lower-level faculty such as assistant and associate professors must exploit the labor of others to

be productive (Academics anonymous, 2018). One strategy faculty use to attract funding is to

rely on large numbers of Ph.D. students and postdocs to generate the sort of research needed

to win grant competitions. Graduate students are often targets of exploitation since they are

expected to provide inexpensive and often unpaid labor (Academics anonymous, 2018;

Mendoza, 2007). Maximizing academic production may mean graduate students must compete

for scarce resources such as funding, equipment, and time to present ideas and get feedback

from a principal investigator (Mendoza, 2007; Rose, 2010). This is especially true for STEM

students (C. M. Campbell et al., 2018).

Competition puts us “in our place.” It assigns us to a place and often makes us feel as if

we are an imposter when we venture out of our place. Bensabi described trying to

“compensate” for her dis/abilities with “workarounds.” She felt pressure to avoid telling others

about the workarounds she found. She feared that if her peers knew of her workarounds they

would be taken away.

I just think it's like very nerve-racking to talk about being able to work around or
compensate for your dis/abilities, or talk your way out of things. Anytime you
 Page 176

find a way around a system that is designed to not let you in I think it's very
tempting to not tell anybody about the thing that worked for you.

It's scary to talk about the ways that you compensate because then, what if
people take them away? Because they're like, “It's not fair because it's not
equal.” But if I could just do it the other way I surely would.

Within the pyramid scheme of academia, any openings that provide access to the

pathway of “success” usurp tradition. Incumbents and those they recruit through the narrow

pathway to power often try to eliminate “workarounds” that would grant additional

competitors access. They may perceive or claim any such “workarounds” as unfair.

Bensabi described her fear that the other graduate students she had to compete against

would observe the way she “compensated” as special treatment. She feared her

“workarounds” would be taken away because they were not fair. They were not equal.

When I compensate or talk my way out of things I get what basically amounts to special
treatment. I feel very bad about it. I'm nervous. I feel like it is something that I should
just hide and not tell anybody else about. I think that's one of the things about
dis/ability (in really anything but especially in higher ed) especially because, even
though they say it's not competitive it kind of is.

Such a pyramid scheme encourages those at the bottom to take the competitive

advantages they can get. Such a low supply of positions of power and high demand for them

can drive individuals to impede the pathway for others. The culture of productivity prioritizes

individualism and the notion of “each man for himself” and “may the best man win.” It

discourages collectivism. It promotes “unpleasantness”, “coldness”, and “silence” among

people (Wofford & Blaney, 2021). In effect, it discourages the unionization and empowerment

of the workers.

Bensabi described the competitive nature of STEM. She noted the environment

discouraged students from working with other people who had dis/abilities. She felt tempted to
 Page 177

hide her approach to getting accommodations. She wondered if other students used the same

approach if professors would still be so willing to accommodate her.

Because you have to get in which means you have to beat out people who don't get in.
Once you're in, you have to get a good grade, and some people grade on a curve. And so
you're encouraged to not work together with other people who are dis/abled. You're
encouraged to not tell them what has worked for you in terms of getting
accommodations or working with professors. Most professors are pretty chill about
working with me, but sometimes I wonder if it's because other people don't know that
they can go and talk to them. I wonder if I'm actually just repeating harmful behaviors
by not telling others about the ways that I've gotten through the things I struggle with.

Similar to other forms of diversity, the current approach to dis/ability in academia is

problematic. Pursuits of equality in higher education often take the form of standardization and

the idea that students will benefit equally from the same types and amount of support. Such

approaches do not account for the multidimensional inequalities students face let alone the

diversity of knowledge, experience, perspectives, approaches, dreams, and needs of each

student.

Under the current model, pursuits of equity often involve navigating around the barriers

of the “status quo” by offering individuals “accommodations” and “resiliency” programs. In

these approaches, students are asked to change. They are asked to bring themselves “up” to an

arbitrary standard by working around the compounded, embedded, systemic, historical, social,

legal, and economic inequities in our society and institutions.

6.4. Concluding remarks

Academia has been shaped by a culture of productivity. Responding to the scarcity of

resources, postsecondary institutions have embraced neoliberal ideals, transforming education

and scholarship into market-like forms of production. Thus, the focus of higher education has
 Page 178

shifted from the pursuit of knowledge to the production of revenue. This chapter demonstrates

how seven participants experienced and were impacted by five aspects of this culture:

efficiency, apathy, competition, the illusion of choice, and the fear of dis/ability.

Under the neoliberal approach to postsecondary education, academics must complete

for scarce resources. Postsecondary education has become resemblant of a pyramid scheme.

Meritocracy disproportionately rewards a select few and empowers them to perpetuate

discriminatory tyrannies of normalcy. To be competitive, academic production must be

maximized. This often results in the exploitation of labor. It results in the exclusion of those

whose body-mind does not fit that of the ideal “worker” norm. Bensabi described how one

must compete to enter let alone be successful in academia. We must compete for funding,

equipment, and time/relationships/audience with people in positions of power. Thus, we learn

to keep resources to ourselves. Bensabi described doing all that she could to find ways to “work

around” barriers. She also described being incentivized to keep such workarounds hidden for

fear of them being taken away. Existing in academia has become disproportionately

inaccessible to those who embody multiple oppressed identities—i.e., those who must navigate

around multiple barriers.

Thriving on the exploitation of labor, those with the most power are often those with

the least empathy for the “workers” they exploit. This apathy has allowed academic

incumbents to build academic environments and expectations to “optimize” and

“commoditize” the productive labor of the “ideal” body-mind. Incumbents frame academic

success as a choice, something that requires sacrifice and an entrepreneurial spirit. Bensabi
 Page 179

expressed her desire to meet a professor (incumbent) who was willing to grow departmental

empathy by starting an open dialogue about dis/ability.

Our “publish or perish” or “grant to perish” (Musambira et al., 2012) mindset binds the

success of academics to the ideal “worker” norms of efficiency. Those who embody these

norms are empowered by those norms—enjoying the largest share of the spoils. Thus,

academic incumbents are incentivized to restrict access to promotion. They are incentivized to

reinforce a rigid and exclusionary consensus of what it means to be “productive” in academia.

Our “publish or perish” mindset binds the success of academics to the ideal “worker”

norms of efficiency. Those with the least power (e.g., graduate students) are expected to

sacrifice their personal lives and health to fuel the productivity of their faculty advisors and the

prestige of their institution. Yet meeting such standards of productivity may not be an option

for those whose body-minds do not conform to that of the ideal worker. Those who cannot or

do not conform to such norms are positioned in opposition to academic success. Success in

academia is often situated in direct conflict with dis/ability. Those who embody the norms are

empowered by those norms—enjoying the largest share of the spoils. Thus, academic

incumbents are generally incentivized to restrict access to promotion. They are incentivized to

reinforce a rigid and exclusionary consensus of what it means to be “productive” in academia.

Bensabi described having to “sacrifice” not only her personal time but also the time she needed

to spend on her research in order to meet the demands of her TA assignment.

In a culture of productivity, we are taught to judge our value in terms of our market

economy. That is, we base our value on our competitiveness, our efficiency, and the apathy

that enables us to devalue those who do not or cannot meet the neoliberal ideal. Bensabi
 Page 180

described her fear of being devalued. She described her fear of dysfunction. She described her

fear of dis/ability. She described how she felt like she had a limited clock of being able to pass

as able-body-minded. She described the uncertainty she felt about what would happen to her if

she failed—i.e., if she could no longer be a productive member of society.

Those whose body-minds do not conform to the neoliberal ideal are often forced to

“pass”, by concealing or downplaying their identity (E. A. Cech & Waidzunas, 2021; Cross et al.,

2022). Disclosing aspects of one's identity that diverge from the norm can be dangerous, yet

the physical and psychological harm of “passing” can dis/able and destroy a person (Kumari

Campbell, 2008a). There is an illusion of choice in passing. However, nonnormative people may

be forced to “pass” to exist in the STEM environment. Bensabi described feeling forced to

increase the performance of “competence” in the field so her identity could not be used to call

her knowledge into question. She described having to leave her lab to maintain resilience and

well-being in the face of such conditions.

 Page 181

CHAPTER 7. RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE IN POWER

Exploring the interpersonal interactions and relationships between dis/abled STEM graduate

students and academics in positions of power

The rate of STEM graduate student attrition limits our creativity, innovation, and

progress toward transforming our world. Moreover, studies indicate that graduate education

may be harming students from diverse backgrounds such as those with dis/abilities. Yet,

graduate students with dis/abilities have been largely ignored in institutional policies,

departmental practices, and research. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the

interpersonal relationships and power dynamics between graduate students and the academics

who have power over them. I conducted qualitative interviews with seven STEM graduate

students who self-identified as dis/abled. This chapter amalgamates their experiences into five

Stories representing a diverse spectrum of supportive and harmful relationships and

interpersonal interactions with academics (especially faculty research advisors). This chapter

reveals a spectrum of ways in which academics use their power to impact graduate students

such as control, support (empathy, representation, flexibility, trust, and advocacy), and violence

(discrimination, harassment, gaslighting, abuse, outing, and abandonment). The amalgamated

Stories demonstrate how such power can impact students’ access to academic support, degree

attainment, professional advancement, community, health, wellbeing, confidence, professional

identity, funding, food and housing security, and life.

 Page 182

7.1. Introduction

7.1.1. Problem

The hierarchical nature of STEM academic programs creates a substantial interpersonal

power differential between graduate students and faculty. Understanding the interpersonal

relationships and power differential between STEM graduate students and their research

advisors offers the academic community multiple opportunities to positively impact the

academic journey, professional advancement, health, wellbeing, and lives of graduate students.

Understanding this power can help us interrupt harmful interpersonal practices and model

supportive practices. It has the potential to benefit our worldwide community. We must learn

how we can better educate, listen to, and graduate diverse STEM professionals and academics

with the skills to better the world.

Due to academic freedom, departments and/or course professors hold absolute control

over what content is provided, how students access content, what the learning objectives of

the course will be, how learning will be assessed, how the student will be graded, and whether

a student passes or fails the course. Depending on the curriculum (if the course is a required

part of the degree path), this power may extend to whether the student is allowed to advance

in their progress toward the degree.

Similarly, faculty members who supervise graduate student thesis or dissertation

research (i.e., research advisors or principal investigators or PIs) also hold significant power

over students. Research advisors often have absolute control over a graduate student’s

funding, research direction, and recruitment decisions (National Academies of Sciences,

 Page 183

Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Graduate students may have limited control over their

research project, education, funding, and career mentoring since such aspects of graduate

studies are often tied to their research advisor (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine, 2018).

***Content warning: harassment, assault, and abuse

The nature of this relationship creates unique risks for graduate students. Research

advisors and graduate students may spend significant time alone together in the lab, in the

field, or in other isolated environments (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine, 2018). The length and one-on-one pedagogical approach to Ph.D. and research-based

master’s programs exacerbate student vulnerability to faculty harassment and abuse

(Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). While graduate students may have the opportunity to work in a

research group/lab with other students, the small and insular nature of these groups may offer

little protection (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018)—especially in the confines of a highly competitive

environment as discussed in Chapter 6. Moreover, the high-stakes influence of key faculty over

a student’s career prospects increases the likelihood of the student being seriously harmed

when harassed by those faculty members (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). Indeed, a quick Google

search reveals articles, blogs, and forums devoted to reporting or “sounding the alarm” about

faculty abuse (e.g., Anonymous, 2012; Moss, 2018; Moss & Mahmoudi, 2021).

Yet all kinds of abuse are severely underreported both inside and outside of academia

(Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). The Association of American Universities Climate survey found that
 Page 184

only 14.1% of women, 8.3% of men, and 21% percent of TGQN 37 university students who

experienced sexually harassing behavior reported it to a campus program or authority such as

counseling, Title IX offices, or victim services (Cantor et al., 2020). Estimates suggest that only

1% of targets of workplace harassment participate in litigation (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). Of

those cases, 6% go to trial (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018).

Graduate school is associated with a high level of emotional, physical, and psychological

stress (Academics anonymous, 2018; Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2000; Khan, 2021). In a 2015

Canadian federation of students survey of Ontario graduate students, verbal interpersonal

abuse was identified as the most common graduate student academic stressor (Khan, 2021).

This was followed by pressure to overwork (discussed in Chapter 6), undermining behaviors,

and intimidation (Khan, 2021).

Research suggests, at least in regards to sexually harassing behavior, that harassment

interferes with a student’s academic or professional performance, limits the student’s ability to

participate in an academic program, and propagates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive social

academic or work environment (Cantor et al., 2020). These effects were disproportionately felt

by gender. Women experienced these consequences 5% to 17% more often than men. TGQN

students reported these outcomes 13.2% to 17.8% more than women (Cantor et al., 2020).

Nearly all recipients of harassment experienced behavioral and/or emotional consequences

(Cantor et al., 2020). Targets of harassment experience well-documented and potentially

37
TGQN is used by the Association of American Universities to represent students who listed transgender women,
transgender men, nonbinary, or genderqueer as their gender identity.
 Page 185

career-ending negative health consequences and/or retaliation (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018;

Mitchell, 2014).

The ethical and cultural damage of faculty harassment negatively affects the diversity of

the professoriate in all disciplines. The sexual harassment of graduate students, postdocs, and

assistant professors has driven many women out of careers in traditionally male-dominated

STEM fields (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). This is true for those who are targeted by acts of

harassment and those who witness it when the aggressors face little-to-no consequences

(Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). Additionally unchallenged harassment substantially and potentially

irreparably harms the training and ethical norms of the profession (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018).

7.1.2. Background

While this chapter’s focus is not on sexual abuse, previous research on academic sexual

misconduct underscores the risk graduate students face in such a power dynamic. The

Association of American Universities (AAU) conducted a survey on sexual assault and

misconduct in postsecondary institutions in 2015 and 2019. The survey found that students

were most likely to be sexually harassed by someone with whom they often interact. While

undergraduate students were most likely to be harassed by other students, graduate students

were much more likely to be harassed by faculty members than students at their Universities

(Cantor et al., 2020). Moreover, faculty harassment generally occurs in the circumstances of a

substantial power differential between the faculty member and the student (Cantalupo &

Kidder, 2018).
 Page 186

Among all students in the 2019 survey, 41.8% reported experiencing at least one

sexually harassing behavior since enrollment (Cantor et al., 2020). This number is likely higher

as the rate of sexual harassment being reported is increasing over time (Cantor et al., 2020).

Moreover, other sources estimate that as many as 81% of women and 43% of men will

experience sexual harassment over their lifetime in the United States (Kearl, 2018). While the

rate of sexual harassment experienced by college students may not be as high as the overall

rate, it is important to consider that people between the ages of 18-34 are more likely to be the

targets of sexual violence (Sinozich & Langton, 2014) and violent crime (Morgan, 2022) than

other age groups.

Statistics on violent crimes can also help us understand the significantly higher risk of

abuse and societal inequities that students with nonnormative identities face. According to

reported instances of violent crime, Black, American Indian, Alaskan native, and persons of two

or more races are more likely than white people to be a target of a violent crime (Morgan,

2022). However violent crime is underreported by people who rightfully fear the police,

whether due to a history of police abuse or even a person’s residency documentation status.

Veterans are more commonly the targets of violent crime than nonveterans (Morgan, 2022).

The likelihood of being a target of violent crimes is inversely correlated with level of income

(Morgan, 2022). The rate of violent crimes committed against lesbian and gay people is more

than two times that of straight persons (Truman & Morgan, 2022). The rate of violent crimes

against transgender and gender-nonconforming persons has been reported as 2.5 times that of

cisgender persons (Truman & Morgan, 2022). Although the discrepancy is likely much higher

due to the use of suboptimal methods in identifying gender (Lett & Everhart, 2022). The rate of
 Page 187

violent crime committed against dis/abled people is nearly four times that of non-dis/abled

people (Harrell, 2021).

However, people with multiple nonnormative identities are at an even higher risk of

abuse. A recent UN Women (2020) report estimates that girls and young women with

dis/abilities may face up to 10 times more violence than women and girls without dis/abilities

worldwide. Black transgender women are twice as likely to be unemployed and live in extreme

poverty compared to transgender people of all racial backgrounds. They are four times as likely

to be unemployed and eight times as likely to live in extreme poverty compared to the general

population.

***End content warning: harassment, assault, and abuse

***Content warning: suicide

Another reason it is important to be aware of how societal inequities compound with

abuse for people occupying multiple nonnormative identities is their impact on suicide

attempts. According to a 2011 study of 6,436 transgender people living in the U.S. “41% of

respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with

rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%),

had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%)”

(Grant et al., 2011).

***End content warning: suicide

As recent lawsuits indicate (e.g., NAD v. Harvard, NAD v. MIT, and Dudley, et al. v.

Miami University, et al.) dis/ability discrimination is somewhat common in US institutions of

higher education (Flynn, 2017). This is especially true for mental health conditions (e.g., Elis for
 Page 188

Rachel, INC., Alicia Abramson and Hannah Neves v. Yale University and The President and

Fellows of Yale University, 2022; M.M. v. Stockton University, 2022). Even though the Americans

with Dis/abilities Act (ADA) provides protections for dis/abled college students, there are a

myriad of challenges preventing dis/abled students from accessing accommodations (Gin et al.,

2020).

Changes to the student accommodation policies and practices at each university are

driven in large part by litigation and subsequent regulation by the Department of Justice.

Rothstein (2018) provides a summary of recent court cases related to dis/ability discrimination

in higher education. Rothstein’s summary shows the evolving nature of how dis/ability is

treated in higher education. This includes what is defined as a dis/ability, what documentation

can be required to demonstrate that a student has a dis/ability, and what accommodations are

considered “reasonable.”

Some recent court cases have made a considerable impact on what is considered

dis/ability discrimination. The ruling of a recent court case, Payan, Mason v. LACCD, broadened

the right of dis/abled students to sue institutions of higher education for dis/ability

discrimination (Jaschik, 2021). The federal appeals court ruled that dis/abled students have the

right to sue institutions of higher education using disparate impact theory—which requires

plaintiffs only to show that a policy has a disparate impact on them, not that the impact was

intentional (Jaschik, 2021).

 Page 189

7.1.3. Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the experiences of dis/abled STEM graduate

students related to the interpersonal relationships and power dynamics they have with the

academics who have power over them.

7.1.4. Research questions

1. How are STEM graduate students with less apparent dis/abilities experiencing dis/ability

in the interpersonal interactions they encounter as they navigate the academic

environment?

2. How are STEM graduate students with dis/abilities impacted by the interpersonal

relationships and power dynamics they have with the academics who have power over

them?

7.2. Methods

Chapter 3 addresses the study design and methods used in collecting and analyzing the

data presented in this chapter. Chapter 4 describes this study’s participants. The results in

Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 are each presented in a different manner. Chapter 3

includes the majority of the description regarding the presentation of results; however, a few

key parts are repeated below.

I present the results of this study as collective Stories. I amalgamate the experiences of

the seven participants into a composite form to highlight both the collective meaning and

aspects of variation in the participants’ collective experiences. I chose this means of

 Page 190

presentation because it is appropriate for representing a range of experiences and it adds a

layer of protection to the participants’ anonymity (Jarrett & Light, 2019).

Attempting to capture the diversity of the participants’ experience, I organize the results

of Chapter 7 into four amalgamated Stories. I first created these Stories by organizing clean

verbatim quotes around different combinations of supportive, controlling, and violent

interactions with people in power. I then arranged these quotes to tell a Story and adapted

them to follow standard writing conventions. For example, I updated the verb tense within the

quotes. I also paraphrased a few of the quotes to improve readability and narrative flow.

Even though the Stories presented in this chapter amalgamate the quotes of multiple

participants, I refer to each Story as having only one participant in my discussion. Since the

Stories are amalgamations told from the first-person perspective, I chose to prioritize

consistency. Thus, I refer to the amalgamated participant in each Story as a singular participant.

I use “they/them” pronouns to represent the amalgamated participant.

Each Story encompasses multiple themes regarding violence, control, and support. Thus,

I separate the results from my discussion for Chapter 7. While discussing each theme, I use in-

text references to each of the Stories related to the theme. I number and title each Story for

the reader's convenience.

7.3. Results

The participants shared many similar experiences regarding their interpersonal relations

with people in power. The experiences shared in this section were selected to represent the

diversity of those experiences. They were chosen to not only highlight problems that need to be
 Page 191

addressed but also positive experiences that demonstrate the impacts such relationships can

have on students. The first Story highlights the support unofficial mentors can give, that is staff

and faculty who are not directly supervising the graduate students. The second Story involves a

supportive faculty research advisor and committee. The third Story focuses on participant

experiences with unsupportive staff and faculty. The fourth Story involves the transformation of

staff members who were initially unsupportive but became very supportive over time. The fifth

Story is less of a narrative and more of a string of recommendations the participants made

during interviews. Since it is important to share these recommendations, I have included them

in this section even though they do not present a narrative.

***Content warning: abuse/microaggressions, gaslighting, outing

Story 1: The importance of the supportive unofficial mentor

I think that when you rely on one person for all of your support professionally that's a very
tenuous situation and you're very vulnerable to abuse.

When my faculty research advisor found out that I have PTSD, he told me that the big
pharmaceutical companies were swindling me, the meds I was taking were no better than sugar
pills, and therapy was a waste of time. He told me about the mental health state of many other
people in the lab (that I'm not supposed to know about) and I'm sure he's told them about me.
In a lot of ways, it's great. My advisor doesn't treat me any differently. He treats me with
respect and doesn't talk down to me. I know, though, that if I have another crisis, if I have to
ask for flexibility, he won't be understanding. My advisor once told me I should think seriously
about what it meant to support somebody who was so selfish as to ask for help. This is the
person I may ultimately need to ask for help. So this is a really shitty situation. But it was either
work with this advisor or drop out of the program.

And so I never felt like I could really turn to the person I thought was supposed to help me for
help. I felt like if I were to ever ask for help that it was a sign of weakness. That's been part of
the problem. I sometimes get help from my advisor, when I ask for it but...I feel like I have to
figure out what the appropriate question is before I can ask for help.

For example, there's a requirement to take prelims, which is a test to demonstrate you have a
basic understanding of what engineering is. I didn’t have a clear understanding of what the
steps were in the process for earning my degree. If I had known there was a test I needed to
 Page 192

take last spring I wouldn’t have spent so much energy on classes that weren’t a part of that. I
didn’t know my focus needed to be on taking classes that would prepare me for the prelims. I
didn’t know taking the prelims was a checkmark I needed to keep moving forward in this
process. I only found out about the prelims when my advisor told me “You’re falling behind.
You might not really want to do a Ph.D.. This [referring to the advisor/advisee pairing] might
not be a match.” It made me angry.

I think the most powerful thing that I found is having a large number of, or at least having a very
passionate unofficial mentor. Knowing what my advisor had said about PTSD and it being selfish
to ask for help, I knew I couldn’t ask him for help—especially if I didn’t want to jeopardize my
funding. So, having people I can choose to go to for support, who are not in charge of my
funding—that's been tremendously valuable. I'm fortunate that I have extra support.

I ended up having a terrible, terrible relapse of PCOS 38 the first semester of my Ph.D. program.
It forced me to kind of face a lot of professors. So I was taking a class and luckily, luckily, for me
the professor was female. I remember having a cyst rupture right before the midterm exam.
And unfortunately, it ruptured in the bathroom at my lab building—the female bathroom. At
the time, everybody in my graduate lab was male. I was one of the only female students in the
discipline. I felt a lot of shame for my PCOS. It was a “feminine problem” and I didn’t want my
labmates to know I had it.

I couldn't get off the floor. I was just completely stuck. I had to make a decision on whether or
not I wanted to call 911 and get carted off to the University Hospital. I didn't want to live
through that shame—of somebody having to come to pick me up out of the bathroom in front
of everyone. My other option was to go and talk to or text my labmates and be like “take me to
the ER. I gotta go….” But I didn’t want to do that either.

I actually ended up doing neither of those things. Boy howdy, I just wanted to pick myself up
and pretend like this wasn't happening. I was thinking “I gotta take this midterm exam. I just
got to go. I don't want to inconvenience anybody and I don't want anybody to know that I'm
going through this.” So I did that. I picked myself up off the floor—which wasn’t the greatest
idea since I was bleeding inside from the blood supply to the ruptured cyst. So I take the
elevator down, walked into the engineering building, and I just collapse. I could not go any
further. I'm right outside of the door to my mid-term. My professor sees me and she runs out
and she's like is everything okay? I broke down so hard. I was like "No, things have never been
okay.” Luckily she understood, because she had also experienced PCOS. She had no kids
because of it. She called over our department secretary to come help me get up. It turns out my
department secretary also experienced PCOS—which was comforting to know.

38
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is a common health condition related to androgyn levels and the formation of
ovarian cysts (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020), as further discussed in Chapter 4.
 Page 193

I missed that midterm exam but that was fine because my professor was like "You can miss as
many class periods as you want. Just let me know what's going on" This is the reason why I'm so
willing to disclose these days, because if I would have known that my Professor had
experienced this and my department secretary experienced this, I would have been way more
open to talking to people about this and being like, “Hey, what are my options to get help?” So I
want to be that person for other people, especially nowadays there are a couple of folks in my
lab that are going through similar things. I'm just like “Yes I'm here. I exist and I'm successful.
You can be too.”

One of my committee members knows about everything I’ve been going through. He’s been
with me every step of the way. I really admire him. I met him on the very first day of
orientation. He talked to us about the importance of reaching out for help and he used his own
depression as an example. So when I started having PTSD symptoms for the first time, I went to
him and said, "Help, what do I do?” He said why don't you talk to Fátima? He did the
introduction. He got me in to see Fátima, a psychiatrist who's super busy. Fátima has been an
enormous support. I believe very strongly Fátima has saved my life at least once.

He even supported me when I asked to no longer attend his lectures. There was a lot of
material I could not sit through. My mind would go blank. I couldn't focus. I couldn't function
well enough to get through the rest of the day safely. After class... I would walk out into traffic
because I wasn't paying attention… because my mind was not there. So he allowed me to not
sit through lectures.

***End content warning: abuse/microaggressions, gaslighting, outing

Story 2: The supportive faculty research advisor & committee

I hadn’t been officially diagnosed with anything when I entered graduate school. Growing up
my parents did not want me to get labeled with a dis/ability because they thought having that
label would limit my future career. Being so recently diagnosed, I’m several, several, years
behind in coming to terms with and learning to accept my dis/abilities. I mean dis/ability is such
a term and can mean so many different things to different people. But the openness of the
faculty members in one of my departments (I am in two programs) has been so helpful to me.
The faculty there say all the time, “Oh I go to therapy” or “I struggle with this or that.” Being
able to see them be successful with those things has just really helped.

When I entered to grad school I came to realize I probably had anxiety and ADHD 39. There
wasn't a lot of classes in my interest areas. I would do really well in the classes that I enjoyed. I
would latch onto the subjects, my brain endorphins would fire, and I would run really hard with
them. But there was no getting me to focus when I was not interested in the content. I would

39
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by
inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity (Faraone et al., 2003), as further discussed in Chapter 4.
 Page 194

have much rather made memes all day if I could. There was a marked decrease in my
performance in those classes, to the point where my [staff graduate secretary/advisor] had to
confront me about my grades.

I think some of the professors in my other department labeled me as a problem student even
though I turned in quality work. I would never show up to class. I was very upfront about
missing class, but would not disclose the exact reason why. Without telling them exactly why I
was missing class they were more likely to interpret this as just me being “flaky.” I think they
assumed I wasn’t going to survive in graduate school. I think that is why some of them didn’t
take much care in making sure I had the material or the access that I needed.

When I was finally diagnosed, I went to my advisor and was like "Hey, the reason why I'm not
working on my dissertation is that, literally, I don't care. But I'm trying to fix that.” Luckily, her
children had autism and ADHD and she was very understanding of what I was going through.
She said "You know, that actually makes a lot of sense. From my standpoint, seeing you work, I
can actually understand an ADHD diagnosis" Luckily my advisor was really, really open to
listening to me and kind of saw that I didn't have to struggle as much as I was struggling. She
had never seen me as “flaky”, but I think knowing the diagnosis helped her better support me.
It was really nice to have an advisor that just knows what's going on in my head. She just
“knocked it out of the park” every day. She was like, "If you can't concentrate on this task
today, you know you have X days to push it off and do other things.” She really helped me
manage my workload and I'm really grateful for that.

With everything going on, I was falling behind. Luckily my advisor was the chair of the
department at the time, so she was willing to talk with the professors for my courses and be
like "Hey, you know they go through some shit. Just help them out. This isn't me playing
favoritism. This is me saying they have a medical condition that they just do not want to talk to
you about.” It was really super helpful. I think having that one person to advocate for me,
really, really set me off on a good track. Without having her there to do that, for me, I probably
would have dropped out. That's how bad everything was because, at the same time I was
battling multiple health issues including migraines. I was falling behind. I could not pay
attention in class even when I was there. Life was a struggle.

I also had a really good relationship with my committee and I think that my advisor was a very
big player in that. My committee members were the kind of people that were like "Hey if you
have to push it out a week, you have to push it out a week. No worries.” They were the kind of
people to be like “Thanks for telling us what you need. Yeah, go ahead and have notes during
your exam” or “Yeah, we're willing to give you a different version of the qualifiers.” Some of the
decisions they made regarding my Ph.D. milestones have even become canon ever since. Now
individuals have the option of just taking the written test, doing the oral presentation, or both
for their qualifiers.

I think I found a good bunch of people that didn't need any excuses nor justification. They didn’t
need to know exactly why I needed something. Which was great since I had not been diagnosed
 Page 195

with ADHD yet when I took my qualifiers40 and gave my proposal defense 41. But I'm not sure
how much I would have gotten of that had I not had a background of conferences and
publications and book chapters and stuff like that. I worked my ass off to make sure that I had
that to fall back on. I never wanted my committee or my peers to feel like I couldn't do it. I
always felt like I had something to prove so I worked my butt off.

***Content warning: sexual harassment, abuse/microaggressions, ridicule, being fired, and

retaliation

Story 3: The unsupportive everyone

Being vulnerable can be dangerous. I disclosed some of my dis/abilities. I was upfront with my
advisor about having PTSD, I even told her before I rotated into her lab. I told her that I might
occasionally have to leave the lab early or something like that and she told me she was
completely okay with that. I asked for help. I got help. I was grateful but it was a double-edged
sword.

I was concerned about who would be assigned to be on my prelim committee. A lot of our
department is mostly men and a lot of the men have a reputation for being handsy. I knew that
if my random person were somebody who had that reputation, I wouldn't feel safe around
them, even though I would logically be totally safe. I knew I would be really, really anxious
around them, and that could really throw me off. Also, a lot of them make really crude jokes.
And they make crude jokes at times when you would not expect a crude joke. Anyway, I talked
to my advisor and she talked to the graduate committee. They assigned somebody really, really
nice to be my random. But it turns out my advisor held that against me. That was the only thing
I asked for. What I said was, “Don't give me a PI who has a reputation for sexual harassment.”

I think my advisor felt I asked too much of her. After asking for help, my advisor started treating
me differently. Sometimes she would treat me like a delicate little butterfly. Other times she
would treat me as if I was using my dis/ability as an excuse. She would sometimes ridicule me.

There has been a lot of unsupportive language that shows a complete lack of sensitivity to my
situation. One time, I asked my advisor why she didn't tell me that my collaborator left our
team and she said, "Oh, I thought you’d go off the rails.” And that's a direct quote. Another
example that stands out was after I had been doing some reading on a really cool field of
research. I got excited about the potential of finding a way to collaborate with someone in that
field. When I told her she said, “Have you forgotten this research involves [triggering activity]?”
She even slowed her speech and very carefully enunciated each word, in a manner not unlike
one would use with a small child. It's just been terrible.

40
Some programs and schools call this a preliminary exam.

41
Some programs and schools call this a comprehensive exam.
 Page 196

After serving as my advisor’s teaching assistant, she gave me a really poor evaluation. Most of
the things in the evaluation were not true. The things that were true were either exaggerated
or twisted to make it seem like I was a particularly inconsistent student.

Then, a few years into my program, my PTSD abruptly worsened. I ended up in the hospital for
a while. Three months later my advisor fired me for being unproductive. She went on to tell
other professors the details about my medical situation and really “poisoned the well” for me.
After that, no one wanted the “responsibility” of taking me on as a Ph.D. student or even
overseeing my research so I could at least come out of this experience with a master’s thesis.

After that, I felt and still feel like I don’t belong and am essentially unwanted. It’s been really
hard to cope.

Even with everything going on I tried to advocate for myself. The thing is, no one believed me
when I told them what she said didn’t represent my performance. The department chair and
dean wouldn’t even look at the records that proved I had finished everything on time. The chair
told me I should drop the program before I got kicked out and that if I didn’t have a mental
health issue I would have already gotten kicked out. The staff graduate secretary/advisor also
said that I did not have the mental capacity to be in a Ph.D. program right then and that I
should apply for a master’s program somewhere else.

It was my advisor’s behavior that was the barrier for me. It was her behavior that was affecting
my mental health. It was her behavior that triggered my first PTSD flashback. It was terrifying.
After the first flashback, it took me three weeks to feel like myself again. And I felt like I
couldn’t tell her that. I had to be very careful to avoid publicly disparaging my advisor, mostly
for my protection but also because I never wanted to hurt her. I know that as a grad student,
my position in academia is very tenuous and if there's ever any sort of public display I will never
have another job offer. My advisor is a full professor and is aiming for another post. If she is
given that post my position here becomes really tenuous.

It seemed like the people I asked for help were twisting everything. I felt helpless because no
one was helping me. That is why I kept getting flashbacks. I had five more within two months. I
just never have experienced such isolation before.

***End content warning: sexual harassment, abuse/microaggressions, ridicule, being fired,

retaliation

***Content warning: discriminatory dismissal

Story 4: The transformation

 Page 197

It wasn't until my second year that staff started finding out that I had PTSD. Their initial
response was not good. They tried to force me out of the program. The department
administrators had never encountered somebody who was "out" about mental illness, who
wasn't very, very, very, very sick. And they didn't have any success Stories. They told me
anybody who was sick eventually failed out of the program. I believe they were genuinely trying
to help me but it was not ok for them to put me in this bracket and tell me this was all I could
handle. I love being in graduate school, I love doing research, and I love learning.

The program directors saw me as a liability. They had no respect for my boundaries. There was
a critical moment when one of the program directors, Saada, called me into her office and did a
safety assessment (you know with the questions like "Are you a danger to yourself and others?”
basically). I did not pass. And I didn't lie fast enough. She spent a lot of effort trying to convince
me to take leave. And my doctor thought this was a terrible idea because my doctor and I
agreed that school and human contact were what was keeping me safe. We agreed that I was
still learning and progressing in my education.

My advisor, Jordan, tried to help but in reality made a number of just extremely inappropriate
demands. On one occasion, she told me I needed more therapy. My doctor disagreed. But I
overruled my doctor because I felt like my boss was giving me an order. So I got more therapy.
Two months later, Jordan decided that I wasn't spending enough time in the lab. Jordan told me
to cut back and do less therapy. So I did that too. On one particularly memorable occasion, right
after I got out of the hospital, I was in really rough shape. I was taking some pretty heavy-duty
psych meds, and one of those caused me to fall asleep frequently during lab. I hated it. It was
very inconvenient, but it was what was keeping me alive in a very material sense. My advisor
told me that falling asleep in my lab meeting was unacceptable and that I needed to find a
different medication. Jordan is not a medical doctor. Jordan is not my doctor. I believe that was
grossly inappropriate.

And despite everything, I worked really hard. I still met pretty much all my objectives. My
supervisor said I was doing fine at every check-in. They seemed understanding when I had a
hard time getting things done. It was the middle of Covid and everyone was struggling. But
halfway through the semester, they cut my funding, saying it was the “quality of my work.”

I literally could no longer afford to be at school that year. And it was just, God… it was such a
bad time for me. It was horrible. My anxiety was so bad and it just made it so much worse
because now I had to figure out how I was going to pay for tuition. I ended up working three
jobs over the summer just to help pay for it. I was exhausted all the time. I was doing my
research and my three jobs—one of which was a lot of manual labor. It was exhausting from
every angle. I spent a lot of days lying in bed because of my depression and then I'd be anxious
and have panic attacks because I didn’t think I was getting enough research done. It was just a
really bad combination of things. I've been getting things done because that's kind of just how I
am; but being able to take care of myself physically and mentally just kind of went down the
drain.
 Page 198

It took a lot of advocacy and a lot of outside support for me to stay in the program. But once I
convinced the staff, they were completely in my court. Saada, the person who did that safety
assessment, who I was in that terrible conversation with, she is now my fiercest supporter. She
helped me get permission to take courses in a different order—so I could avoid the triggering
material until I'm ready. She screamed down the registrar to make that happen. She was the
one who talked with me after my funding was cut. Within 10 minutes I had written to Saada
and within two hours she had organized a meeting with all of the program leadership. She
almost drove me out of the program but now she's also the reason I've been able to stay in the
Ph.D. Program.

***End content warning: discriminatory dismissal

***Content warning: discriminatory dismissal

Story 5: Recommendations

The further I have advanced in my education, the less empathy I have experienced. I think the
fact that I'm a student with an invisible dis/ability and that I'm a graduate student makes it
really hard for people to empathize with me. They don’t see me for who I am and aspire to be.
They see me struggling, they don’t know how to help, and they don’t ask how they can help.

After my advisor fired me we had a mediated conversation. She described having so much
insecurity and so many doubts about how to interact with me. And she felt like she tried
everything.

On the outside, my advisor had a reputation for being very accepting, and very nurturing. I
think she was better than most PIs. I think she felt like she didn't know how to interact with me
and didn’t feel like she could ask for help. And I wish that she felt comfortable reaching out to
get training and support.

From my end, she tried nothing. It feels like there are a lot of good intentions out there, but
people don't have the training. They don't have the resources. They don't know how little they
know. So, I guess, if I could change one thing, I would make more resources easily and
shamelessly available to everybody. But I don't know if I'm arguing for a stronger ombuds office
or a more inclusive dis/ability services office. There has to be somebody who provides support
to the supporters.

If we provide people in positions of power with training on how to interact with students it
could be very helpful. Training could help individuals have constructive conversations with
students and avoid using language that could derail them. We need to ask how we could
approach a student who is struggling and what impact we may have. We need to ask how our
impact could be different for different students. We need to ask what kind of language could be
more triggering.
 Page 199

I think step one needs to be increasing awareness. There is a lack of understanding, empathy,
support, and resources for students with dis/abilities. It seems like a lot of people assume
dis/ability exists but is uncommon. They say, “Yeah but how many of those students are—we—
going to have?” I wish people thought more about how the numbers play out in their
community. If you look at the rates of depression, psychosis, traumatic brain injury, and
dis/ability writ large, this is happening. It's almost certainly happening to people they know who
are just not talking to them about it, particularly for invisible dis/abilities. I think when
professors, PIs, and other people in power are thinking about their mentees, the assumption
has to be that this, dis/ability, is happening. We need to give instructors and anyone in an
academic position the opportunity to learn more about what it could be like for a student with
a dis/ability.

Let’s not forget we are working toward having more diversity in STEM so that we have better
research. People with different backgrounds are going to face specific obstacles. If we assume
populations don’t exist, at least not in our backyards, then we're forgetting to include various
different backgrounds.

7.4. Discussion

Before discussing these Stories, I want to reiterate that these Stories are

amalgamations. They represent the experience of more than one participant; however, for the

sake of simplicity, I refer to the amalgamated participant of each Story in the singular form.

People holding power over the participants reacted in different ways to the dis/ability

status of the participants. Some used their power to support students. They offered advocacy,

empathy, compassion, accommodations, trust, and flexibility. However, some used their power

to negatively impact the participants. They withdrew their support of the participant, gaslighted

the participant, denied or minimized the participant’s experience, committed microaggressions

(also known as abuse or violence) against the participant, or tried to control the participant's

medical regimen for them. Still, others had mixed responses or responded differently over time.

As the following discussion illustrates, research advisors hold a substantial level of

power over graduate students. The following discussion explores the cascading impacts when
 Page 200

dis/abled graduate students fall out of their advisor’s favor. Specifically, the amalgamated

Stories describe how research advisors hold power over their graduate students’ research

topics, funding, employment, healthcare, networking, career options, and life. Chapter 5 also

discussed several forms of power a research advisor may hold over graduate students,

depending on the context. Research advisors may have sole discretion over the enrollment

status of a graduate student, the topic the student researches, what funding the student

receives, and what coursework the student engages in. The role of the research advisor means

that a graduate student cannot progress nor complete the thesis/dissertation components of

their degree without their advisor's approval. Since a research advisor has the ability to cut a

student’s funding, “fire” a student, or even refuse to sign off on a student’s enrollment in

coursework or dissertation/thesis credits, they control a student’s access to university

sponsored healthcare and housing.

The following discussion situates the Stories within some of the potentially relevant

issues (some of which may have legal implications) and context. However, it is important to

note that the power advisors hold over students is not necessarily legal in nature. Yet their

social power is strong enough to preclude legal remedy if a student wishes to have a future

career.

***Content warning: violence/abuse/microaggressions

7.4.1. Violence

This chapter uses the term “violence” to describe multiple ways in which people in

positions of power harmed the participants. One form of violence includes “abuse” or
 Page 201

commonplace daily interactions that communicates slights, disparagement, and insults.

Another form of violence that overlaps with others is harassment and discrimination. Other

forms include gaslighting, outing, and abandonment. These modalities of harm are not rigidly

defined. Rather they are fluid, overlapping, and simultaneous. Nor are these modalities

comprehensive. Other forms of violence such as those stemming from the logic of eugenics

persist in scholarship and policy (Annamma et al., 2013; Hill Collins, 2019), (as discussed in

Chapter 2). However, this chapter does not include such forms of violence as they were either

not explicitly described in study interviews or I was not given explicit permission by the

participants to share them in the dissemination of the research. It is also important to note that

the reason violence was forced upon the participants was likely intersectional (relating to

multiple identities the participant was assumed to inhabit) and due to a multitude of cultural

factors. As an example, a participant may have been targeted by violence not because they

were a woman and not because they were dis/abled but because they were a dis/abled

woman.

7.4.1.1. Abuse

As previously discussed in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, STEM academics (students, staff,

and faculty) from non-normative backgrounds experience a daily onslaught of

“microaggressions”. Dr. Derald Wing Sue (2010) describes microaggressions, whether

intentional or unintentional, as the brief yet commonplace daily verbal, non-verbal, behavioral,

and environmental indignities which communicate layered, hostile, derogatory, or negative

slights, invalidations, and insults to an individual or group. While the term “microaggression” is

commonly used to describe this phenomenon, some argue that the term downplays the low
 Page 202

hum of daily abuse as something minor (Kendi, 2019). Following this logic, some authors offer

alternative terms to describe this phenomenon such as “abuse” (Kendi, 2019), “violence”

(Beardmore, 2022a), and quiet violence.

The participants in this study recounted experiencing daily violence from those who

held power over them. The abuse they experienced came in a variety of forms. Story 1 provides

an example of the abuse committed by a research advisor in the warning they gave a

participant about another student. Story 2 describes a more direct form of verbal abuse a

research advisor directed at a participant.

Story 1 shares how a research advisor told a participant that they should think seriously

about what it meant to support somebody with a dis/ability who was so selfish as to ask for

help. The participant noted they were in a “shitty situation” since their advisor was the person

they may ultimately need to ask for help.

The participant in Story 2 described how their advisor would make disparaging

comments about them. Sometimes the advisor would treat the participant in a condescending

and childlike manner. Still other times the advisor would ridicule them. It is not clear whether

this harassment was based on the participant’s gender, race, dis/ability, or likely an

intersectional combination of the participant’s nonnormative 42 identities. It is outside of the

scope of this study to untangle the systems of oppression influencing this harassment. While

such an exploration is valuable, this study is meant to be a first step in broadly exploring a

42This dissertation uses the term nonnormative to describe people who are different from the
normative notion of the ideal body-mind. This could be someone who looks, acts, thinks, or
sounds different than the typical and/or dominant individuals in a normalized space.
 Page 203

dearth of knowledge; regardless, it is important to acknowledge the impact such behavior had

on the participant.

Such experiences taken individually might seem minor to someone not experiencing

them; however, the cumulative, latent, and chronic harm of such abuse is not minor (Suárez-

Orozco et al., 2015). The experiences regarding abuse shared by the participants in Story 1 and

Story 2 align with the findings of prior research regarding the experiences of STEM students

from nonnormative backgrounds (Lamb et al., 2022; Morton & Parsons, 2018).

The abuse nonnormative STEM students experience when persisting in hostile

environments has been shown to cause biopsychosocial harm (Lamb et al., 2022).

Nonnormative individuals endure negative consequences for existing in STEM spaces such as

impacts to professional advancement, social relationships, well-being, and health (Cepeda,

2021; Cross et al., 2022). The battle fatigue 43 that accompanies violence decreases self-esteem

and increases feelings of burn-out, depression, helplessness, and anger which suppresses

immunity (Ahmadi et al., 2021; Mitchell, 2014; Morton & Parsons, 2018). Battle fatigue has

been correlated with increased sickness, depression, ulcers, insomnia, nightmares, difficulty

thinking or speaking coherently, tension headaches, trembling and jumpiness, anxiety, chronic

pain in healed injuries, and elevated blood pressure (E. Cech, 2021; Mitchell, 2014). Battle

fatigue may also yield counterproductive behaviors such as attrition, self-isolation, and lack of

engagement (Morton & Parsons, 2018; Tan, 2022).

43 Battle fatigue, as further discussed in Chapter 5, describes the exhaustion of enduring violence.
 Page 204

As discussed previously, graduate school is associated with a high level of emotional,

physical, and psychological stress (Academics anonymous, 2018; Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2000;

Khan, 2021). Considering the direct, and quite likely unchecked power the participants’ advisors

held over them, it is not hard to imagine how elevated levels of prolonged stress can manifest.

This is especially true when considered within the context of the systemic oppression toward

multiple identities held by the participant and the alienation experienced by the participant in

their STEM education, as discussed in Chapter 5. It becomes clear how even “small” or

unintentional acts of violence could have a cascading impact on the participant’s health.

***End content warning: violence/abuse/microaggressions

***Content warning: harassment

7.4.1.2. Harassment

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.) defines harassment as

“unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation,

gender identity, or pregnancy), national origin, older age (beginning at age 40), dis/ability, or

genetic information (including family medical history).” Sexual harassment and gender

discrimination are such a normalized part of the academic environment that it often goes

unrecognized, even by the target (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,

2018). Sexual harassment is often only understood as unwanted sexual advances; however, it

can also include lewd jokes or comments, disparaging or critical comments related to

competency, unwanted sexual touching, stalking, and sexual assault by a colleague (National

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Story 3 describes how a research
 Page 205

advisor violently retaliated against a participant after they requested accommodation to have a

committee of people who were not known for sexually harassing students.

The first sentence of Story 3 is perhaps the most important statement this chapter

makes: “Being vulnerable can be dangerous.” The participant in Story 3 shares how disclosing

their dis/ability to their research advisor was a double-edged sword. Their disclosure was met

with both helpful outcomes and harmful consequences. The participant, a woman with PTSD

and prior sexual trauma, requested that their Ph.D. prelim committee not include anyone with

a reputation for sexual harassment. Regardless of the person's actions during the prelim, the

participant knew they would not feel safe around someone with such a reputation. They knew

the elevated levels of anxiety they would experience being forced to be around someone with

such a reputation would throw them off during their exam. This was especially true given the

power differential.

Studies indicate that as many as 58% of female faculty and staff in institutions of higher

education experience sexual harassment (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine, 2018). This number is even higher in STEM academic programs (National Academies

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018) and higher still for transgender, nonbinary, and

genderqueer people (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). Indeed, many male-dominated programs have

a prominent level of organizational tolerance for sexual harassment. As the participant in Story

3 described, academic departments are satiated with “open secrets” regarding individuals who

engage in sexual harassment (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018; National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Individuals in academic departments are often warned by

colleagues to avoid and/or ignore colleagues with a history of sexually harassing behavior.
 Page 206

Individuals reporting such behavior are often retaliated against, “given no choice but to leave

the department”, or ignored while the instigator remains unsanctioned.

***End content warning: harassment

***Content warning: gaslighting

7.4.1.3. Gaslighting

As indicated in Chapter 6, gaslighting is a covert form of emotional violence and abuse

that misleads the target of gaslighting to question their own thoughts, perception or reality, or

memories (S. Gordon, 2022). The participants in this study recounted multiple times when

people within the participant’s academic spheres belittled or minimized their experience and

identity. Take for example Excerpt 7 from Chapter 5. While the people gaslighting the

participant in that excerpt were also students, they held power over the participant. The

normative STEM climate entitled them to compare the participant to the normative identity.

Specifically, one student exercised power over the student by dictating what identity the

participant was allowed to claim and how they were allowed to feel and respond in a situation.

In this regard we can recognize how gaslighting is another form of violence, as has been

acknowledged in other research(Christensen & Evans-Murray, 2021; Watson-Creed, 2022). This

chapter builds on the undercurrent of gaslighting thus far presented in this dissertation. It

explores gaslighting within the context of a more formal power differential. The Stories in this

chapter show us how the participant’s experience was minimized and how their reality was

denied after people in power learned they had a dis/ability.

Specifically, Story 1 provides an example where a participant’s research advisor

undermined the legitimacy of the participants’ diagnoses and treatment. The participant
 Page 207

perceived this as both a positive and negative response. They appreciated that their advisor did

not treat them differently but also knew their advisor would not provide the flexibility needed

to meet the participant’s access needs (since the advisor did not believe mental illness was

real).

The participant in Story 2 recalled that their advisor would sometimes accuse the

participant of using their dis/ability as an excuse. Such behavior has been previously identified

in the literature. Grimes et al. (2020) note that professors often do not understand the various

episodic impacts of mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. This lack of

understanding can translate to a lack of support due to the faculty member’s perception that a

student is using their dis/ability as an “excuse.” One particularly troubling outcome is the

psychological impact this can have on a student. One of the participants in Grimes et al. (2020,

p. 31) recounts grappling with the anticipation of a professor not accepting depression as a

valid excuse:

In some cases I have completed weekly assignments but have not attended class
due to my chronic major depression. I have not been able to gain marks because
you can only hand the work in on that specific day each week…I feel that
depression is not a valid reason and I was also daunted that the lecturer/tutor
would not accept that as a reasonable excuse.

Fearing such a reaction from a professor may prevent students from seeking

accommodations with their professors (Grimes et al., 2020). Moreover, the fear of how a

faculty member might respond to a student’s disclosure can be detrimental in the formation of

a student’s professional identity. Grimes et al. (2020) find that university learning environments

sometimes delivered messages that a professional identity excluded people living with mental

health issues. Such messages can reinforce the normlessness experienced by students, as
 Page 208

discussed in Chapter 5. Dis/abled students may avoid disclosure for fear of being stigmatized

due to not meeting the normative ideals associated with their profession (Grimes et al., 2020).

However, the same students are aware of how their non-disclosure inhibits their ability to

engage with academic support, build their social support, and develop their professional

identity.

***End content warning: gaslighting

***Content warning: outing

7.4.1.4. Outing

Those fitting the normative ideal are not forced to disclose normative aspects of their

identity. Yet those with dis/abilities are forced by institutional policies to disclose their

dis/abilities to those with power over them to request and potentially receive accommodations.

Individuals in supervisory roles either unintentionally or intentionally weaponized the

knowledge of the participant’s dis/ability. In this regard, we can recognize how nonconsensual

disclosure can be used to perpetuate violence. “Outing” is a term originally used to describe

someone disclosing the gender, sex, and/or sexual orientation of a queer person without their

consent (Nelson, 2022). This chapter adopts this term to describe someone disclosing a

dis/ability or other nonnormative aspect of a person’s identity (especially when that identity is

less apparent) without the consent of that person.

Often, a person must disclose their dis/ability status to receive dis/ability

accommodations per their institution’s or employer’s dis/ability accommodation policy. If the

employee’s dis/abilities interfere with job expectations such a policy may direct the human

resources office of the employer to disclose an employee’s dis/ability to their supervisor to

 Page 209

accommodate it. The same is true with dis/ability services offices and disclosing student

dis/abilities to professors. Grimes et al. (2020) describe students’ hesitation in reporting their

dis/ability to their university, fearing that the university would share their private information

with potential employers. These fears ended up being very much substantiated (Grimes et al.,

2020). This was not an isolated experience as the participants in Story 1 and Story 3 of this

study also experienced the inappropriate sharing of private medical information.

Story 1 provides an example where the participant’s research advisor told the

participant about the mental health of their labmates. The participant clarified that they were

not supposed to know about the diagnoses of their labmates. Because of this experience, the

participant was sure their advisor had told other people about their diagnosis without their

consent.

Story 3 takes this a step further. After the participant was fired by their research

advisor, the advisor damaged the participant’s reputation. The participant’s advisor disclosed

the participant’s medical situation to other professors without the participant’s consent. After

the advisor shared the participant's dis/ability with other principal investigators the participant

perceived that no one wanted the “responsibility” of taking them on as a Ph.D. student.

The phrasing the participant used, “the responsibility of taking me on” circles back to

some commonly held beliefs about dis/abled people. Chapter 5 discusses how dis/ability carries

the stigma of being unprepared, incapable, and a liability (Peterson, 2021). Thus, it is easy to

imagine how “outing” a student’s dis/ability status, let alone describing their dis/ability, can

“frame” that student as underprepared, incapable, and a liability.

 Page 210

Depending on your experience, you might be thinking, “Is outing someone’s dis/ability

illegal?” I am not an attorney so I cannot begin to adequately address the legality of anyone’s

actions. If you are curious about potential statutes that might apply in these situations you

might check out the Americans with Dis/abilities Act (ADA) section 102(d)(3)(B) limitation on

disclosure, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) Section 206(a) treatment of

information as part of confidential medical record, and Family Educational and Privacy Rights

Act (FERPA) Title 34 Subtitle A Part 99 Subpart D §99.31 (a)(1)(i)(A).

***End content warning: outing

***Content warning: discrimination

7.4.1.5. Discrimination

Given that universities often perpetuate a culture of productivity (as discussed in

Chapter 6) and do little to raise awareness of diversity, it is not difficult to imagine why a

research advisor might consider a graduate student's dis/ability accommodations as a

hindrance to their own productivity and success. Universities make little effort to deter

negative perceptions of dis/ability. Universities often make little effort to provide employee

training to help faculty better understand dis/abilities and dis/ability accommodations (Gin et

al., 2020).

Chapter 5 discusses how dis/ability carries the stigma of being unprepared, incapable,

and a liability (Peterson, 2021). The reluctance to work with someone who is presumed to have

such traits neatly ties back to Chapter 6. Framing Story 3 in a “culture of productivity” indicates

that the more time, energy, or resources a professor has to put into advising a student, the less

productive they may be.

 Page 211

If a student is imagined to be “underprepared”, a potential research advisor might

assume they would have to expend resources helping the student “catch up” or learn “remedial

concepts.” The advisor may believe they would need to find funding to cover that student’s

extra coursework or spend time researching resources to help the student “catch up.”

Moreover, if the professor perceives that the student will not be able to start publishing as

soon as another student would, they may be concerned that taking on a dis/abled student

could impact their publication rate and therefore their chances of earning or maintaining

tenure. This is especially true if the professor perceives the student as being incapable.

If a professor assumes a student is “incapable” they may assume that they would be

legally obligated to “hold the student's hand.” They may assume they would be unduly

burdened by working with the student, as they would be forced to go to great lengths to fire

the student to avoid being sued for discrimination. If they assume the student is incompetent,

they may believe they would eventually have to fire the student and then expend a great deal

of resources to legally justify firing the student. Therefore, they may think it is in their interest

to not work with the student in the first place. It is easy enough to say the student would not be

a “good fit” in their research group without qualifying what they mean by a “good fit.”

Institutional policy often forces graduate students to negotiate their accommodations

with their faculty advisors who have significant power over them. This puts students in a

dangerous situation. The interactions students have with faculty when negotiating

accommodations can be negative and may impact the faculty member's perception of a

student’s competence (Gin et al., 2020; Peterson, 2021; Swenor et al., 2020). Unfortunately,
 Page 212

recent legal proceedings indicate that a student’s only form of recourse when facing dis/ability

discrimination from a faculty member may be legal action (Rasamny, 2022).

The sole discretion of a research advisor on whether a student is a “good fit” is

complicated by the dis/ability accommodation process in postsecondary education. As recent

claims have indicated, even when an office of dis/ability services grants a student

accommodations, deference may be given to each faculty member to decide whether or not to

implement the student’s university-approved accommodation (Rasamny, 2022).

The participant in Story 1 stressed the importance of having someone they could go to

for dis/ability accommodations that was not their research advisor. They described how

tremendously valuable it had been for them to have an informal mentor who was not in charge

of their funding. In this way, the participant could go around their research advisor to get

support. The participant could choose to ask for support or accommodations without disclosing

their dis/ability to their advisor. In doing so, they could avoid potentially putting their funding

and graduate career in jeopardy.

Considering the justified hesitations students have in disclosing their dis/ability status, it

follows that such barriers might also be present in reporting dis/ability-related harassment and

discrimination. After all, why would a principal investigator believe a relatively unknown

person’s self-attestation when someone the principal investigator trusts says they cannot be

productive? When considering how a principal investigator’s livelihood may depend on the

productivity of their graduate students (as discussed in Chapter 6) the difficulty of such an

imposition becomes even more evident.

 Page 213

The participant in Story 1 tried to advocate for themself in the situation, but no one

believed them. The participant tried reporting what happened to their chair, their dean, and

dis/ability services. However, the chair told the participant that they (the participant) would

have already been kicked out of the program if it were not for their mental health “issue.” The

program’s graduate secretary/advisor told the participant that they did not have the mental

capacity to be in a Ph.D. program.

Dis/ability discrimination policy can prevent a student from being kicked out of their

program for having a dis/ability but it does not necessarily prevent students from being fired or

simply being outright ignored by their advisors. In this sense, dis/abled graduate student

employees may exist outside of the protections of policies that focus on dis/abled students and

those that focus on dis/abled employees (Beardmore, 2022b). While students can request

flexible assignment deadlines as a dis/ability accommodation in their coursework, research

advisors can hold absolute discretion over the requirements they demand of their graduate

research assistants.

Disbelieving students who report harassment, discrimination, and retaliation is nothing

new. Studies have found that even though only around 5% of sexual assaults are reported to

law enforcement as many as 20% of those reports are dismissed by police as being

“unfounded” ( i.e., a lie) while less than half of reports result in charges (Murphy-Oikonen et al.,

2022). Indeed the “fear of not being believed” is one of the top three barriers to students

reporting sexual assault at a large midwestern primarily white institution (PWI) (Sable et al.,

2006). Interestingly the other most common barriers are shame, guilt, embarrassment and
 Page 214

“confidentiality concerns” (Sable et al., 2006). These barriers may also be common for students

reporting dis/ability-related harassment.

***End content warning: discrimination

***Content warning: being fired, discriminatory dismissal

7.4.1.6. Abandonment

The interviews provided an ample pool of data regarding the withdrawal of support

from students by people in positions of power. These experiences included cutting students’

funding, firing students from their research positions or lab, and behaving in ways that forced

students to leave their lab. It also included encouraging students to leave or drop out of their

program or degree, which is further explored in the following section.

One of the most pervasive themes found in this research was that advisors could and

did choose to not work with students because they “were not a good fit” or “were not meeting

productivity expectations.” In such instances of discrimination, students were sometimes

“fired” as in Story 3. Before the participant in Story 3 was fired, their advisor seemed (to the

participant) as if they were trying to force the participant to quit by antagonizing and abusing

the participant. After the participant found a new advisor, the new advisor set a precedent that

made it difficult for the participant to ask for help. Moreover, the advisor failed to

communicate with the student. They did not explain the doctoral degree requirements and

associated deadlines to the participant until the participant had missed them. Similar

circumstances could leave a student ineligible to receive their degree. Yet another way students

felt forced out of their degree was when their funding was cut, as in Story 4.
 Page 215

The power research advisors have over graduate student funding is heightened by the

disparity in funding that dis/abled academics receive. The findings of Swenor et al. (2020)

indicate that dis/abled principal investigators have a lower grant success rate than non-

dis/abled researchers. Similarly, the National Science Foundation found that dis/abled graduate

students receive less funding than their non-dis/abled peers in the United States (U.S.) in

2018—forcing them to frequently rely on loans and personal finances (National Center for

Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021). A 2020 study showed that burdens such as these may

have been disproportionately exacerbated for students with dis/abilities during the Covid 19

pandemic (Soria et al., 2020).

The participant in Story 3 started experiencing new PTSD symptoms in their first year of

graduate school. As their PTSD symptoms worsened, they were hospitalized for the first time.

They started experiencing regular flashbacks and panic attacks. Within three months of the

participant’s first flashback, their advisor fired them for being unproductive. The participant

directly named their advisor’s behavior as the barrier that negatively impacted their mental

health. They noted their first flashback was triggered by their advisor’s behavior. They

described a cyclical relationship between the advisor's behavior, their mental health, their

productivity, and alienation by the advisor, which ultimately led to being fired.

***End content warning: being fired, discriminatory dismissal

7.4.2. Control

As previously established, there is a large power differential between key faculty and

staff members and graduate students (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). Such power is drawn from
 Page 216

the support, resources, and access to opportunity that key faculty and staff can withdraw or

withhold from students. Such power and control can be used to benefit or inhibit students.

Thus the “control” category of this discussion is placed outside of both the previous subsection

on violence and the subsequent subsection on support. Story 4 describes instances when

faculty and staff used their power in grossly inappropriate ways to attempt to “help” a

participant by exercising control.

When a staff member learned the participant had PTSD, they tried to force the

participant out of the program to “help” the participant. The participant believed the staff

member was genuinely trying to help them. The participant attributed this behavior as being a

response to the association between mental health and being incapable. The staff person told

the participant that everyone who was sick eventually failed the program. The participant

explained it was inappropriate for the staff person to assume a student could not handle

graduate school because others had left their programs.

Unfortunately, the participant’s experience is not unique. Mapp v. Board of Trustees

Community College District No. 508 involved an instance when a professor indicated concerns

to a student that the student would not be able to complete a class due to the student’s

dis/ability. The court found that the professor's statements were sufficient to demonstrate

exclusion, even though the university had not intended to deny benefits or services to the

student (Rothstein, 2018).

***Content warning: psychological safety assessments/suicidal ideation

The participant in Story 4 further explained that their program directors perceived them

as a liability. The directors had no respect for their boundaries. One of the directors conducted
 Page 217

a psychological safety assessment on the participant. Note: such assessments assess the risk of

a person making a suicide attempt or harming someone else. When the participant failed the

assessment, the director tried to convince the participant to take leave despite the medical

advice of the participant's physician.

***End content warning: psychological safety assessments/suicidal ideation

These were not the only grossly inappropriate demands made by the people who held

power in the participant’s department. The participant’s research advisor intervened in their

medical treatment by requiring the participant to receive more therapy. Again, this was in

opposition to the physician's medical advice. When the participant followed the demands of

their advisor, spending more of their own time and money attending additional therapy, their

advisor changed her mind. The research advisor decided the participant was not spending

enough time in the lab, so she instructed the participant to reduce the amount of time they

spent in therapy. The participant overruled their physician’s treatment plan in both instances

because they felt their advisor was giving them an order. The participant also noted that one of

their psychiatric medications had a sedating side effect. As a result, the participant started

falling asleep in their lab. The participant hated the side effect but felt they had to tolerate it

because the medication was keeping them alive—in a very material sense. However, their

research advisor told the participant it was unacceptable to fall asleep in the lab and required

the participant to find a different medication.

The legality of these interventions may seem questionable. The ADA (42 U.S.C. section

12112(d)(4)), Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth (Petesch & Chichester Jr., 2012) and (Lewin,

2007) may offer additional legal context. Returning to the elements of Story 4, Sulima v.
 Page 218

Tobyhanna Army Depot (Olegtree Deakins, 2010). Christian v. St. Anthony Med. ADA

Amendments Act of 2008 was in effect (Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P. C., 2010).

Peters v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Title II of the ADA (Rothstein, 2018).

Despite everything, the participant in Story 4 worked as hard as they could. Their supervisors

gave them positive feedback at every check-in. Their supervisor seemed understanding when

they had a hard time getting things done since it was the middle of Covid, and everyone was

struggling. However, their supervisor abruptly cut their funding without any warning or

clarification of their expectations. They simply cited the participant’s “quality of work.” The

participant could no longer afford to eat, which is an all too common circumstance faced by

graduate students. A recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education describes how graduate

students are dropping out of their programs for medical, familial, financial, and emotional

reasons (Anonymous, 2022). The anonymous author noted, “Some were parents in situations

like ours—no child care and not enough food stamps.”

The sudden loss of funding greatly increased the participant’s anxiety due to the

financial strain. They had to work three jobs over the summer just to pay for one semester’s

tuition. The work was exhausting. It greatly increased the participant’s depression. On top of

already having a very hectic work schedule, the limited amount of time the participant had to

work on their research was greatly reduced by the consequent depressive symptoms. This

downward self-perpetuating spiral in their health reduced their availability to work on research.

It meant they could no longer care for themselves physically or mentally.

 Page 219

7.4.3. Support

The participants in this study also had positive interactions with people in positions of

power. The participants received empathy, understanding, and compassion. Individual faculty

members providing representation of shared identities not only made the participants feel less

isolated but also helped educate other people in power about diverse experiences so that they

could be more empathetic. Providing flexibility in how students engage in content and

demonstrate knowledge and providing accommodations made the participants’ graduate

education more accessible to them. Believing the participants rather than forcing them to

provide intimate details about their medical conditions played a huge part in the participants'

ability to thrive in the academic environment. Moreover, the advocacy of people in power was

perhaps the strongest support the participants received.

7.4.3.1. Empathy

Multiple participants emphasized how important the empathy and compassion of

others had been in their academic journey. The participant in Story 1 shared how lucky they

were that both a professor they had and the department secretary were not only female but

were also diagnosed with PCOS. When the participant collapsed outside of their classroom with

a ruptured cyst it was these two individuals that responded. The participant attributed the

individuals’ female identity, knowledge of PCOS, and personal experience with PCOS to their

empathetic and compassionate response. The participant feared how their labmates (who were

male) would have responded in the same situation. The participant felt incredibly lucky and

took comfort in knowing that the individuals who arrived on the scene understood what the

participant was going through.

 Page 220

7.4.3.2. Representation

Awareness of the diverse journeys people can have in their lives and academia is an

important building block of empathy. The participants described how important representation

can be in breaking down the normlessness they felt in STEM academia, as described in Chapter

5. Story 1 and Story 2 reflect on the role of representation in the participants' journeys of

acceptance and disclosure. These Stories share how representation can make it easier for

dis/abled students to seek and accept help.

When the participant collapsed in Story 1 from a PCOS complication, the professor who

also happened to have PCOS ran to them to help. The professor called over another person, the

department secretary, who also had PCOS to help. After helping the participant, the professor

told the participant that they could miss as many classes as they needed so long as the

participant let the professor know what was going on. The participant shared that the way in

which the professor responded to the situation was the reason the participant is willing to ask

for help.

The participant explained that if they had known earlier about the identity of their

professor and department secretary, they would have been more open to talking to people

about their dis/ability. They explained that the reason they are willing to disclose their

dis/ability now is that they want others to know they are not alone. They want other dis/abled

people to know that they can be successful in STEM academia too.

The participant in Story 1 also shared how a professor publicly disclosed his own

experience with depression to communicate the importance of asking for help. This message

had a profound impact on the participant. When the participant started experiencing PTSD
 Page 221

symptoms for the first time they went to that professor to ask for help. That professor helped

the participant get in to visit a psychiatrist, whom the participant credited with saving their life

more than once.

Similarly, the participant in Story 2 shared how the openness of faculty in one of their

departments to discuss their own mental health helped the participant. The faculty’s

representation of being successful, dis/abled academics was especially helpful when the

participant was struggling to accept their dis/abilities. The participant grew up with parents

who prevented them from being diagnosed with dis/abilities, entering special education, and

receiving accommodations due to the stigma carried by dis/abilities. Like many parents

(Anonymous, 2003), the participant’s parents believed that being labeled as dis/abled would

limit the participant’s career.

Complicating the participant’s acceptance of their dis/ability, the participant in Story 2

did not realize they had certain dis/abilities until graduate school. It is common for people to

not receive a dis/ability diagnosis until after completing their K-12 education (Hosking, 2008). It

is also common for people to develop a dis/ability as an adult (Hosking, 2008).

Representation can help normalize the journey to dis/ability diagnosis during

postsecondary education. It can help people recognize that they might have dis/abilities. It can

destigmatize dis/ability. It can help people accept their dis/abilities as a natural part of human

diversity. It can encourage people to seek help and learn about options that can help them

better access their education.

A growing body of literature highlights the importance of representation, positive role

models, and support systems for women and other nonnormative individuals in STEM (e.g.,
 Page 222

Allen-Ramdial & Campbell, 2014; Mendez, 2022; Rybarczyk et al., 2016; Yadav et al., 2020).

Mendez (2022) argues that the representation of nonnormative individuals is vital for retaining

STEM postdoctoral women in the professoriate pathway. Moreover, it can benefit all STEM

professionals and academics, not just those with nonnormative identities (Mendez, 2022).

Mendez (2022) found that scholars lacking positive role models felt institutional expectations of

sacrifice constricted their careers and sent a message that they were not welcome in academia.

Research over the past several decades has consistently identified factors that reduce

the participation of nonnormative individuals within and between phases of the STEM pathway,

including a lack of mentors and role models (Mendez, 2022). Racial representation is positively

correlated with Latinx student academic success (Hagedorn et al., 2007). Gender representation

is important to girls' access to higher education and women’s access to senior positions in

higher education (O’Connor et al., 2015). Dis/ability representation, especially that of multiply

marginalized dis/abled academics, has the potential to raise awareness regarding the

exclusionary tenure requirements embraced in a culture of productivity (Kerschbaum et al.,

2017). Lichenstein et al. (2014) call for institutions to consider how messaging around sacrifice

limits the diversity of faculty, acknowledge how such messaging propagates marginalization,

and recognize the power of positive role models in overcoming the dynamics of power,

oppression, privilege, suffering, and exploitation.

7.4.3.3. Flexibility

Another way in which people in power provided support to the participants in this study

was by offering flexibility and providing accommodations. The participants in Story 1 and Story

2 describe the potential of flexibility to help them to not only engage in coursework but also to
 Page 223

contribute to the body of knowledge by generating new knowledge. Moreover, the participant

in Story 1 shares how such flexibility potentially saved their life.

The participant in Story 1 realized their PTSD symptoms were triggered by some of the

content in one of their classes. Their PTSD symptoms invaded their daily life, forcing them to

relieve their past trauma over and over again. Experiencing these involuntary disruptions, the

participant began walking out in front of traffic. The participant asked the professor if they

could study outside of class rather than attending lectures, as had been required. The

professors' flexibility and willingness to grant such a request helped the participant control

their engagement with triggering content. It helped them study the content in a safe location. It

allowed them to stay present when going about their day. It potentially saved their life.

The participant in Story 2 shares problematic assumptions and behaviors professors can

have about students who do not disclose their dis/abilities. Yet, they also share how their

research advisor responded when learning about the participant’s dis/ability. The participant

described how they thought several professors assumed they were “flaky” due to their

attendance and concentration. Yet the participant’s research advisor had never percieved them

as flaky. This was true, even before the participant disclosed their dis/ability to their advisor.

The diagnoses made since to their advisor.

This Story points to the importance of research advisors getting to know their students.

By getting to know students, advisors can better understand what students need to be

successful. Keeping an open mind can go a long way to countering implicit bias. The journey to

a Ph.D. is highly customizable, thus providing ample opportunity for flexibility. Advisors and

students can work together to support the students' executive functioning and engagement.
 Page 224

We can engage in the ongoing process of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to continue

expanding the ways in which they can offer flexibility and broaden student access to education.

As previously discussed, the implementation of accommodations is often left up to the

discretion of professors. Thus professors have the opportunity to implement formal university

granted accommodations but also informal requests for accommodations, as discussed in

Beardmore (2022b). Moreover, professors and principal investigators have the opportunity to

provide flexibility through the application of Universal Design (Beardmore et al., 2022). Specific

recommendations for implementing Universal Design in the graduate classroom and graduate

research lab are provided by Beardmore et al. (2022).

7.4.3.4. Trust

The participants in this study noted how someone in power simply trusting students was

extraordinarily helpful. The professor in Story 1 knew the participant was experiencing PTSD.

The professor trusted that the student knew what they needed. The professor believed the

participant’s request was legitimate. The professor did not ask the participant for a detailed

explanation. Thus the participant did not have to engage in forced intimacy 44. That is, the

participant wasn’t forced to exhibit extreme vulnerability in order to exist in a hostile ableist

environment (Mingus, 2017). They were not forced to retraumatize themself by disclosing

details of their dis/ability for the professor to accommodate their needs.

***Content warning: suicide

44
Forced intimacy, as further discussed in Chapter 1, involves being forced to exhibit extreme vulnerability in order
to exist in hostile ableist environments, which are built for the “ideal”-body-minded person (Mingus, 2017).
 Page 225

Should the professor have chosen to respond with forced intimacy or chosen not to

accommodate the participant's request, the participant might not be alive. It is imperative that I

draw a distinction here. Forced intimacy is not representation. It is not role modeling. What it

is, is unacceptable. We must make sure our colleges, especially those in power, understand

how toxic forced intimacy is—especially in the hostile environment of STEM. Forced intimacy is

a tool used by gatekeepers to bar access. It is a tool of oppression used to exclude dis/abled

people from STEM careers. When dis/abled people are forced to share deeply traumatic and/or

stigmatized aspects of themselves, it is a tool that can be used to exclude dis/abled people from

their lives. Suicide is discussed further in Chapter 5.

***End content warning: suicide

7.4.3.5. Advocacy

Perhaps the strongest way in which people in power supported the participants was

through advocacy. In this sense, I use the term advocacy to mean taking action against

oppression. Rather than providing accommodations to help a student overcome a barrier,

rather than striving for equity within a system of oppression, these individuals took action

against the barriers. These people used their power to resist oppression.

Story 2 shares how a participant’s research advisor used the relationships they had

established with other professors to advocate for the participant. The advisor told the

professors for the participant’s courses that the participant had a medical condition and

needed some flexibility. Moreover, they emphasized that the participant did not want to talk to

the professors about their medical conditions. The participant said that having someone,

especially their advisor who happened to be the chair of the department, was very helpful.
 Page 226

Even when the participant could attend the class they were not able to pay attention. The

participant said if their advisor had not advocated for them in this way they would have

probably dropped out.

The participant in Story 2 notes that their positive relationship with their committee was

in large part, due to their research advisor. The participants found they were able to request

flexibility in how they met the learning objectives of their Ph.D. milestones. The participant also

shared that the flexibility they were granted in demonstrating they had met the required

learning objectives for their Ph.D. became the standard for Ph.D. students ever since.

The participant in Story 2, shared that they believed they found a good bunch of people

to work with. They were grateful that these people, their course professors, and their Ph.D.

committee did not need to know the details or justification for why the participant needed

flexibility. It was something the participant did not want to share. The participant’s advisor

believed the participant. When their advisor advocated for them, the professors leading their

courses and serving on their committee believed their advisor.

However, even with the support of their advisor, the participant felt they had to go

above and beyond to prove themselves in their chosen STEM field. They worked hard to publish

and make a name for themselves in the broader academic community to have “something to

fall back on.” They thought such a background was necessary to prove they could be successful

in completing their Ph.D. The participant expressed their fear that if they had not worked so

hard to prove themselves above and beyond what was required for their Ph.D. they would not

have been given the flexibility they needed to complete their degree. This sentiment and

behavioral response referred to as the “proving process” is well documented in the literature in
 Page 227

regard to academics of color (C. M. Campbell et al., 2018). A more in-depth discussion on the

proving process and stereotype threat is given in Chapter 5.

While Story 4 presents many barriers people in power can inflict upon graduate

students it also recognizes their capacity to break down those barriers. Story 4 described the

transformation of a staff member. The staff member had previously tried to force the student

to leave their program. After the student convinced the staff member of their ability to

complete their studies, the staff member became their fiercest supporter. Similar to the

advocacy and support provided in Story 2, the support in Story 4 came in the form of helping

the participant fight restrictive/inaccessible policies and practices. This staff member helped

the participant get permission to take courses in a different order. They also brought together

all of the academic program leadership within two hours of the participant’s funding being cut

to find out what options the University and community might have for the student. They were

able to get the student partial funding. The same person who almost drove the participant out

of the program became the reason they were able to stay.

7.4.4. Power and impact

People in positions of power, especially research advisors can positively and negatively

impact students. They can use forms of violence (discrimination, harassment, gaslighting,

abuse, outing, and abandonment) to negatively impact students. They can use forms of support

(empathy representation, flexibility, trust, and advocacy) to positively impact students. They

can also use their power to control situations negatively or positively. These uses of power are

depicted in Figure 7-A.

 Page 228

Representation
Advocacy

Flexibility

Empathy
Trust

The impact of using power

Discrimination

Abandonment
Harassment

Gaslighting

Outing
Abuse

Figure 7-A: Interpersonal impacts of faculty power

Figure 7-A descriptive text: Figure 7 depicts an abstraction of a free body diagram. The

object of the free body diagram is a box labeled “the impact of using power.” There are five

upward forces acting on the object. These forces are labeled: “trust”, “advocacy”, “flexibility”,

“empathy”, and “representation”. Control is not depicted in the diagram as it can be used as

either a positive (upward force) or negative (downward force). There are six downward forces

acting on the object. The downward forces are labeled as “discrimination”, “harassment”,

“gaslighting”, “abuse”, “outing”, and “abandonment”.

 Page 229

While the themes in this chapter are broken out into themes of Violence, Control, and

Support it is important to emphasize that the interpersonal relationships and power dynamics

the participants experienced are complex. While an experience may be categorized under a

particular heading to facilitate discussion on that heading, each experience transcends simple

categorization. Please note that the uses of power depicted in Figure 7-A are not meant to be

comprehensive, complete, nor discrete. Rather they are flexible and overlapping. They are

meant to be built upon, updated, and adjusted. This research is exploratory in nature, so the

uses of power are meant to provide a foundation or jumping off point for discussion and future

research. Organizing these uses of power into themes helps simplify and prioritize areas for

discussion and growth. While many other factors, uses of power, and impacts are likely in play I

believe it is important to expeditiously disseminate the results of this research thus far to

promote change.

There are limiting and substantiating factors that may influence a person’s use of their

power and the level of impact it has on students. These include culture, norms, stigma, and

stereotypes. They also include institutional policies and practices that entitle the individual to

power. They also include representation, role modeling, and knowledge of diversity. These

factors are interconnected.

***Content warning: suicide

The way in which people used their power had a variety of impacts on the participants

in this study. Faculty could use their power to provide or alienate a student from academic

support. They could award or take away funding. A student may respond by taking on multiple

jobs, limiting their time, energy, and motivation to do research. Changes to a student’s funding
 Page 230

and/or enrollment status can impact their access to university housing (housing security), food

(food security), student health insurance, childcare, university student employment,

university dis/ability accommodations, and opportunities to engage in professional

advancement (e.g., attend conferences). Such changes can impact the students' health and

well-being. Faculty can actively support or inhibit a student's professional/career advancement.

Faculty can foster a sense of community, encourage social relationship building, provide

networking connections, encourage the student to build their professional identity, and boost

students’ confidence and self-esteem. They can also isolate students from their community by

requiring their time and energy to be focused on the lab, insisting the student does not belong

or is not worthy of a profession-based identity, or ruining the student's reputation. Such

demands can impact motivation, interest, burnout, well-being, and health. Moreover, severe

violence can impact the student’s access to life, through impacts to the student’s health and/or

suicidal ideation.

***End content warning: suicide

7.5. Concluding remarks

This chapter explores the power faculty and staff, in particular, research advisors hold

over graduate students. People in positions of power sometimes use their power to control

situations. They sometimes harm students through acts of violence such as discrimination,

harassment, gaslighting, abuse, outing, and abandonment. They sometimes positively impact

students through empathy, representation, flexibility, trust, and advocacy. However, the

interpersonal relationships of faculty and staff with graduate students do not happen in a
 Page 231

vacuum. The culture, norms, stigma, stereotypes, and institutional policies and practices

influence the level of power imbalance in such relationships.

The interpersonal relationships between faculty and staff and students may harm or

support students. The power imbalance enables faculty and staff to alienate a student from

academic and social support or welcome them into a community. The power imbalance allows

individuals to control a student’s access to funding, employment, professional development,

housing, and food security. This can impact a students' health and well-being.
 Page 232

CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS

This chapter provides a summary and conclusions to the research presented in this

dissertation. The purpose of this dissertation was to explore and describe the experiences of

STEM graduate students with less apparent or nonapparent dis/abilities in their graduate

academic journey. This chapter provides a summary of the dissertation. It then builds upon the

findings in Chapters 5 to 7 to offer practical recommendations for postsecondary institutions,

programs, department leadership, and individual academics such faculty, staff, administrators,

policymakers, and students. These include opportunities to broaden diversity awareness and

valuation. They also include opportunities for emancipation from the systems of oppression

that drive power imbalance. This chapter also lists some of the limitations of this study and

prioritizes future areas of research.

8.1. Summary of Key Points

Diversity is an essential element in solving complex problems and creating innovative

yet responsible solutions that benefit individuals, local communities, and our global society.

While we have made some progress toward inclusion in higher education, the low enrollment

and even lower numbers of graduates among STEM students with nonnormative 45 identities is

staggering. There is a dearth of literature exploring the complexities and interconnectedness of

45 This dissertation uses the term nonnormative to describe people who are different from the normative notion of

the ideal body-mind. This could be someone who looks, acts, thinks, or sounds different than the typical and/or
dominant individuals in a normalized space. Nonnormative students include but are not limited to those who are
first-generation, low-income, dis/abled, documented and undocumented immigrants, and students who are Black,
Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, Indigenous, queer, and/or gender diverse.
 Page 233

how students experience such barriers and what opportunities we may have to effect change.

More specifically, there is a paucity of research exploring the perceptions and experiences of

STEM students (James et al., 2018), graduate students (Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017),

student researchers (Lillywhite & Wolbring, 2019), and students with less apparent dis/abilities,

let alone students with multiple marginalized identities (Vergunst & Swartz, 2021). We (those of

us in higher education) generally ignore students with dis/abilities in institutional policies and

departmental practices (Meeks et al., 2020; Rose, 2010), instruction and advising practices

(National Educational Association of Dis/abled Students, 2019), and academic research and

dissemination (Lillywhite & Wolbring, 2019; Lizotte & Clifford Simplican, 2017). Moreover, we

socially marginalize, stigmatize, discredit, and devalue people with dis/abilities in engineering

culture (Cech, 2021).

Dis/ability is a complex, evolving, and nuanced concept. There are a diversity of opinions

on how to define dis/ability (including dis/ability) emanating from multiple eras of scholarship

and activism. Our knowledge of dis/ability, at a societal level, has been limited by our difficulty

in defining the “dynamic and contested nature” of dis/ability (Lizotte & Clifford Simplican,

2017).

Recognizing the absence of a clear definition of dis/ability, I proposed a theoretical

framework in Chapter 3 through which we can examine the experiences of dis/abled STEM

students. This framing aims to (1) disrupt the deficit narrative of dis/ability and the normative

ideal of ability; (2) emphasize the socio-cultural co-construction and co-dependence of

dis/ability and ability; (3) recognize dis/ability and ability as social, political, historical, and legal

constructions of ableism, racism, heterosexism, eugenics, and other systems of oppression in

 Page 234

academia and society; (4) appreciate the uniqueness of each individual’s

intersectional/multidimensional 46 experience and perception; (5) acknowledge the temporary,

episodic, transient, chronic, and permanent variations of dis/ability and the often fluid levels of

visibility dis/ability can have; and (6) recognize dis/ability as the often simultaneous oppression

of body/minds deviating from the norm, the fear of dis/ability, the physical, material, and

psychological pain of impairment, and the impacts of being labeled as deviating from the norm.

This model is meant to expand and grow as we, the dis/abled and engineering education

communities, learn more together.

The purpose of this dissertation was to explore and describe the experiences of STEM

graduate students with less apparent or nonapparent dis/abilities in their graduate academic

journeys. The focus of this study was on the experiences of multidimensional students who

were dis/abled rather than their experiences of dis/ability itself. Acknowledging the

multidimensional nature of one’s experience it is not possible to isolate the experience of

dis/ability from that of the collective, compounding, and intersecting identities one holds.

Specifically, this dissertation explored the experiences of dis/abled students regarding (1)

academic alienation or estrangement; (2) the STEM academic culture of productivity; and (3)

the interpersonal interactions and relationships between dis/abled students and academics in

positions of power. The experiences of these phenomena are unlikely unique to dis/abled

students. Dis/abled students are often among the first to be impacted by practices that

46 Multidimensionality is defined in Chapter 2, as an analytical framework for understanding how the interdependent

systems of oppression and privilege interconnect, compound, conflict, and overlap in a person’s experience afforded
by the convergence and divergence of the individuals’ socio-cultural categorizations, capital, and community cultural
wealth.
 Page 235

ultimately impact all students (Jacklin, 2011). Thus, by studying the experiences of dis/abled

students, my hope was to identify some of the ways in which these phenomena may be

impacting all students.

The research conducted for this dissertation consisted of two phases. I used Harvey's

process in Phase 1 to explore the experiences of two dis/abled STEM graduate students. Using a

grounded theory approach, I relied on the findings from Phase 1 to inform the investigation

conducted in Phase 2. Specifically, I designed Phase 2 to explore the experiences of dis/abled

STEM graduate students with regard to culture, policy, and interpersonal interactions. I used

narrative interviews and a post-interview survey to collect data from five additional participants

in Phase 2. After analyzing the results of Phase 2, I prioritized three themes to share in this

dissertation. I then constructed the three chapters of narratives (Chapters 5, 6, and 7) to

present findings from both Phases related to each theme.

The participants in this study included seven individuals who were enrolled in STEM

programs seeking master’s and/or doctoral degree(s) at publicly funded and private universities

with varying levels of research productivity. Each of the participants was enrolled or had

recently been enrolled in one or more of the following STEM disciplines: Computer Science,

Engineering Design, Civil Engineering, Cognitive Psychology, Chemistry, Engineering Education,

Global/Humanitarian/Community-based Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Biology.

Some participants had previously received or were concurrently enrolled in non-STEM degree

programs. The participants included individuals who had previously or concurrently worked in

industry, served in the military, and/or entered graduate school immediately after earning

undergraduate and/or another graduate degree(s). The participants held multiple roles at their
 Page 236

institutions in that they were taking classes and/or serving as employees while conducting

research.

The participants described having a variety of less apparent dis/abilities including

depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post-traumatic stress

disorder (PTSD), panic disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), migraines, temporary partial

vision loss, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury (TBI), environmental allergies, scent sensitivity,

dyslexia, and Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). Some participants were “diagnosed” with one or

more dis/abilities in childhood, whereas others did not receive a dis/ability “diagnosis” nor

formal accommodations until after completing their undergraduate education.

Collectively, the participants used a variety of terms to describe themselves including:

female and assigned female at birth; woman, nonbinary, and demi-woman; LGBTQIA, gay,

lesbian, bisexual, queer, and pansexual; Latina, Hispanic and white, and white;

Bilingual, not entirely fluent in Spanish, English speaking, and English and Spanish speaking;

“non-traditional” and “in my 20s”; “spiritual but not religious” and atheist;

and American, Mexican American, American-born Columbian, and second-generation

American. They were raised in the American East, South, Midwest, and West. They also

described themselves as rich, middle class, on the brink of homelessness, and barely affording

to eat.

As previously stated, this dissertation explored the experiences of dis/abled STEM

graduate students regarding three phenomena. These phenomena included (1) academic

alienation or estrangement; (2) the STEM academic culture of productivity; and (3) the
 Page 237

interpersonal interactions and relationships between dis/abled students and academics in

positions of power. The results related to each phenomenon are summarized below.

8.1.1. Academic alienation

Alienated academics, especially those with nonnormative identities, are negatively

impacted by existing in STEM spaces. Conceptualizing students as workers, academic alienation

describes the separation of a student from power, norms, and social connection/belonging.

Chapter 5 described how powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation compound on one

another to cyclically drive increases in academic alienation and disengagement.

Academic powerlessness can be defined as the belief that an academic (student,

faculty, or staff) has little choice, control, or influence over the product of their labor (e.g.,

research data, research outcomes/findings, research publications, and learning outcomes/skills)

and the activity of their labor (e.g., the subject of their research/studies, the methods of their

research, the means for engaging in course content, and the means for demonstrating their

knowledge). The participants described feeling powerlessness when a person or group of

people did not listen to them, restricted their agency, made decisions for them, or otherwise

did not include them in making decisions that impacted them. They also felt powerlessness

when others did not believe or trust them. They felt powerlessness when others questioned

their understanding of their own body-mind, questioned their competency in decision-making,

and/or required the participants to prove what they said was true. They felt powerlessness

when others created restrictions from a deficit mindset—e.g., when dis/ability services acted as

gatekeepers to resources that the participants knew they needed to fully access their
 Page 238

education. Conversely, the participants felt valued when they were asked for their opinion,

included in decision-making, believed, and given flexibility and options in their approach to goal

setting, engaging with content, and demonstrating they had achieved the learning objectives

for a class or their degree.

Academic normlessness can be described as the feeling of inauthenticity or self-

estrangement an academic experiences when their interests, values, and goals are inconsistent

with, devalued by, or are restricted/prohibited by the socially imposed dominant norms of their

lab group, program, department, college, or institution. STEM academics and industry

professionals socially marginalize, stigmatize, discredit, and devalue nonnormative individuals

such as people with dis/abilities (Cech, 2021). Yet we often do not recognize this, as the stark

power imbalance in academia (Dolmage, 2017) and STEM (Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021)

encourages us to ignore the ableist oppression we have “normalized” in STEM. The participants

described experiencing normlessness when others denied their nonnormative reality—e.g.,

when a professor dismissed a participant’s PCOS symptoms and pain as insignificant.

Conversely, the participants felt recognized and valued when their nonnormative identities

were openly represented by others, especially those in positions of power. They described how

understanding what it can be like to experience dis/ability gave them the empathy they needed

to recognize when others were struggling and offer support.

Academic social isolation can be described as the feeling of exclusion or loneliness an

academic feels in the absence of social support, connection, and belonging in their lab group,

program, department, college, and/or institution. The participants felt social isolation in hostile

or chilly climates—e.g., how dis/ability was treated as a taboo subject in conversation and the
 Page 239

physical design of spaces. They also experienced hostility in how they were forced to remove

themselves from their communities in order to participate in academia. The participants felt

social isolation through the onslaught of daily insults and indignities known as microaggressions

or abuse in witnessing professors mock dis/abilities and having their identities erased by others.

Moreover, they described how their academic experience impacted their mental health, the

fear they began to experience in being in class or on campus, and their need to isolate

themselves from such a harmful environment. Moreover, they described the impact of their

academic environment on their suicidality and thus their access to life. However, the

participants also recognized their need to know they were not alone and decided to be that

representation for others.

Chapter 5 shared how academic alienation portends very real consequences. When we

obfuscate the inclusion of graduate students with dis/abilities, we actively encourage their

exclusion. An alienating climate impedes professional advancement, social relationships, well-

being, health, and academic progress.

8.1.2. Culture of productivity

Academia has been shaped by a culture of productivity. Responding to the scarcity of

resources, postsecondary institutions have embraced neoliberal ideals—transforming

education and scholarship into market-like forms of production. Thus, the focus of higher

education has shifted from the pursuit of knowledge to the production of revenue.

Under the neoliberal approach to postsecondary education, academics must compete

for scarce resources. Meritocracy disproportionately rewards a select few and empowers them
 Page 240

to perpetuate discriminatory tyrannies of normalcy. Thus, postsecondary education has come

to resemble a pyramid scheme. To be competitive, academic production must be maximized.

This often results in the exploitation of labor. It results in the exclusion of those whose body-

mind does not fit that of the “ideal worker” norm. The participants described how one must

compete to enter, let alone be successful in academia. We must compete for funding,

equipment, and time/relationships/audience with people in positions of power. Thus we learn

to keep resources to ourselves. The participants described doing all that they could to find ways

to “work around” barriers. They also described being incentivized to keep such workarounds

hidden for fear of them being taken away. Existing in academia has become disproportionately

inaccessible to those who embody multiple oppressed identities—i.e., those who must navigate

around multiple barriers.

Thriving on the exploitation of labor, those with the most power are often those with

the least empathy for the “workers” they exploit. This apathy has allowed academic

incumbents to build academic environments and expectations to “optimize” and

“commoditize” the productive labor of the “ideal” body-mind. Incumbents frame academic

success as a choice, something that requires sacrifice and an entrepreneurial spirit. The

participants expressed their desire to meet a professor (incumbent) who was willing to grow

departmental empathy by starting an open dialogue about dis/ability.

Our “publish or perish” mindset binds the success of academics to the “ideal worker”

norms of efficiency. Those with the least power, e.g., graduate students, are expected to

sacrifice their personal lives and health to fuel the productivity of their faculty advisors and the

prestige of their institution. Yet meeting such standards of productivity may not be an option
 Page 241

for those whose body-minds do not conform to that of the ideal worker. Those who cannot or

do not conform to such norms are positioned in opposition to academic success. Success in

academia is often situated in direct conflict with dis/ability. Those who embody the norms are

empowered by those norms—enjoying the largest share of the spoils. Thus, academic

incumbents are generally incentivized to restrict access to promotion. They are incentivized to

reinforce a rigid and exclusionary consensus of what it means to be “productive” in academia.

For example, participants described having to “sacrifice” not only their personal time but also

the time they needed to spend on their research in order to meet the demands of their TA

assignment.

In a culture of productivity, we are taught to judge our value in terms of our market

economy. That is, we base our value on our competitiveness, our efficiency, and the apathy

that enables us to devalue those who do not or cannot meet the neoliberal ideal. The

participants described their fear of being devalued. They described their fear of dysfunction.

They described their fear of dis/ability. They described how they felt like they had a limited

timeline of being able to pass. They described the uncertainty they felt about what would

happen to them if they failed—i.e., if they could no longer be a productive member of society.

Those whose body-minds do not conform to the neoliberal ideal are often forced to

“pass”, i.e., conceal or downplay their identity (E. A. Cech & Waidzunas, 2021; Cross et al.,

2022). Disclosing aspects of one's identity that diverge from the norm can be dangerous, yet

the physical and psychological harm of “passing” can dis/able and destroy a person (Kumari

Campbell, 2008a). There is an illusion of choice in passing. However nonnormative people may

be forced to “pass” in order to exist in the STEM environment. The participants described
 Page 242

feeling forced to increase the performance of “competence” in the field so their identity could

not be used to call their knowledge into question. They described having to leave their lab in

order to maintain resilience and well-being in the face of such conditions.

8.1.3. Relations with people in power

Faculty and staff, and most notably research advisors, hold significant power over graduate

students. The participants described how people in positions of power sometimes use their

power to control situations. The participants described being harmed through acts of violence

such as discrimination, harassment, gaslighting, abuse, outing, and abandonment. The

participants described experiencing harassment they believed was in retaliation to a request for

accommodation. They experienced gaslighting when those in power denied their reality. They

experienced abuse and control when incumbents undermined the legitimacy of their dis/ability

and medical treatment. The participants also described being positively impacted through

empathy, representation, flexibility, trust, and advocacy.

The interpersonal relationships with faculty and staff may harm or support STEM

graduate students. People in positions of power may believe they know what is best for a

student and thus take control. They may choose to use their power to place restrictions on

resources, pathways, or behavior. They may also order others to do certain things, such as

forcing a student to seek a certain kind of medical care. The power imbalance enables faculty

and staff to alienate a student from academic and social support or welcome them into a

community. The power imbalance allows individuals to control a student’s access to funding,
 Page 243

employment, professional development, housing, and food security. It empowers incumbents

to wield control over a student's health and well-being.

However, the interpersonal relationships of faculty and staff with graduate students do

not happen in a vacuum. The culture, norms, stigma, stereotypes, and institutional policies and

practices influence the level of power imbalance in such relationships. Thus it is important to

effect change at multiple levels—e.g., systemic change in society, structural change in

disciplines, institutional change in colleges and universities, cultural changes in programs and

departments, as well as change at the interpersonal and individual levels.

8.2. Challenges

This dissertation illuminates a series of interconnected problems in STEM postsecondary

education. Understanding the barriers to inclusion in STEM academia gives us the opportunity

to dismantle them. In this section, I summarize a few of the oppressive barriers identified

throughout this dissertation—apathy, ignorance, and subjugation.

8.2.1. Apathy and ignorance

The seemingly indifferent attitude of many academics toward oppression may, at least

in part, stem from their ignorance of oppression in the first place. When knowledge of diverse

experiences is absent from insular and relatively homogeneous environments, the feelings and
 Page 244

attitudes of individuals are often informed by their implicit bias 47 and stereotypes48 (National

Education Association, 2022; Sue, 2010). These “normative” assumptions often serve as hidden

referents of ableism (Beardmore et al., 2022). People in positions of power may rely on

misinformed assumptions to create and maintain cultural norms that devalue and normalize

the abuse of nonnormative body-minds, thus reinforcing harmful stereotypes (Lichtenstein et

al., 2014). As an example, students with mental health dis/abilities may anticipate others will

respond with discrimination and prejudice and thus choose to avoid disclosure (Grimes et al.,

2020).

Individuals instigating normalized violence may not intend to harm those with

nonnormative identities. Indeed, incumbents often fail to recognize the harm their actions have

on students (Lamb et al., 2022). Individuals and organizations may not realize how the culture

reduces the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM programs

(Lichtenstein et al., 2014; Wofford & Blaney, 2021). Further, incumbents may not recognize the

extent of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral effort that students must make to persist in a

hostile environment laden with exclusionary norms (Lamb et al., 2022).

This lack of representation of diverse perspectives has created and continues to

reinforce a rigid consensus of what it means to be “productive” in academia. The participants in

47
Implicit bias refers to the assessments an individual unawarely makes about other people based on characteristics
such as race, ethnicity, age, and appearance (National Education Association, 2022). The feelings and attitudes
guiding these assessments are developed over a lifetime through exposure to direct and indirect messages and
normative stereotypes (National Education Association, 2022).

48
Stereotypes are widely held yet overly simplified beliefs regarding an individual or group based on limited
knowledge and understanding of that individual or group (Morton & Parsons, 2018; National Education Association,
2022). Stereotypes are made when someone groups individuals together based on some factor and makes a
judgment about them without knowing them (National Education Association, 2022).
 Page 245

this study believed that the lack of empathy they received from their professors was due to a

lack of exposure to working with diverse people. Without personally experiencing nor having

close relationships with those experiencing various forms of oppression, the ableism, racism,

and sexism perpetuated by cultural norms often go unacknowledged. For example, dis/abled

people are stigmatized as being unprepared, incapable, and lazy (Peterson, 2021) which makes

it easy for incumbents to assume that dis/abled people are underrepresented in STEM because

of their “lower natural ability” (Seymour & Hunter, 2019) or lack of entrepreneurial spirit (D.

Harvey, 2005) as opposed to the underlying systems of oppression. Indeed, “laziness” is a

common stereotype for people holding a multitude of nonnormative sociocultural

categorizations including race, dis/ability, and gender (N. Brown & Leigh, 2020; Goodley, 2013;

Mireles, 2020). Thus, STEM culture has come to position diversity and differences such as

dis/ability as weaknesses and laziness, as described in Chapter 6. The norms of competition and

efficiency reinforce the idea that nonnormative individuals cannot, do not, and should not exist

in STEM academia.

Chapter 5 described a cultural assumption that nonnormative people must “pass” as

closely as possible to the normative ideal to exist or survive in STEM academia (Chapter 5).

Those who recognize the exclusion of difference, yet remain ignorant of the intricacies of

oppression, may perpetuate oppression. Sometimes well-intentioned, normative people in

positions of power may take on a “white savior” role to “protect” nonnormative people by

trying to force them to conform or leave the STEM academic environment, as discussed in

Chapter 7.
 Page 246

Without organizational acknowledgment of problematic assumptions and associated

dynamics it is difficult to hold incumbents accountable for them (Wofford & Blaney, 2021).

Academic curriculum, requirements, and learning objectives are often chosen based on

the beliefs and assumptions about “what students do and should know and what they can and

should be able to do” (Hockings, 2010). Our perception of diversity, roles, student needs, and

students’ prior knowledge can block inclusion (Hockings et al., 2008; Shaw et al., 2007; Zepke &

Leach, 2007). It can silence challenges to the status quo (Koro-Ljungberg, 2007).

The limited number of nonnormative STEM academics are often isolated from their

communities. We are discouraged from going against the status quo or requesting

accommodations. When we do share our experiences, we often face gaslighting, increased

violence, and stereotype threat.

8.2.2. Subjugation

Just as the U.S. criminal justice system functions as a contemporary system of racial

control (Alexander, 2010), so too does U.S. education. The U.S. education system strips away

the agency and control of the proletariat (e.g., students, post-docs, and adjunct professors). It

allows the incumbents to subjugate the proletariat for their own gain. It allows for the

subjugation and extortion of labor and sets a precedent that the proletariat work for the

benefit of the University and incumbents for cheap or for free.

The educational power dynamic is seemingly impenetrable, allowing incumbents to cut

students off from their community and access to vital resources such as health care. The

interviews provided an ample pool of participant experiences with having their funding cut,
 Page 247

being fired, and being pushed out. This is particularly problematic given the disparity in the

average funding dis/abled academics receive to begin with (National Center for Science and

Engineering Statistics, 2021; Swenor et al., 2020). Moreover, advisors could and did choose to

not work with students because they “were not a good fit” or “were not meeting productivity

expectations.”

STEM education filters out those who do not fit within the “ideal” body-mind of the

incumbents through the ableist, racist, sexist, and oppressive barriers they have normalized

(Dolmage, 2017). This is especially true in STEM academic programs (Reinholz & Ridgway,

2021). It permits incumbents to gaslight, abuse, and control students with minimal rebuke.

The current carceral pedagogy in U.S. education frames students who have been

shunned by tenured faculty as defective and untrustworthy. Disbelieving students reporting

harassment, discrimination, and retaliation is nothing new. Some of the participants tried to

advocate for themselves, but no one believed them.

Returning to the comparison between academia and the prison industrial complex,

studies have found that even though only around 5% of sexual assaults are reported to law

enforcement as many as 20% of those reports are dismissed by police as being “unfounded”

(i.e., considered a lie) while less than half of the reports result in charges (Murphy-Oikonen et

al., 2022). Indeed the “fear of not being believed” is one of the top three barriers to students

reporting sexual assault at a large midwestern PWI (Sable et al., 2006). Interestingly the other

most common barriers are shame, guilt, embarrassment, and “confidentiality concerns” (Sable

et al., 2006). These barriers may also be common for students reporting dis/ability-related

harassment.
 Page 248

8.3. Opportunities for growth

This chapter builds on the recommendations from prior diversity and inclusion literature

by offering several recommendations from the study participants based on their experiences.

Prior literature offers some broad recommendations regarding the inclusion of

underrepresented students. These recommendations provide the academic community with a

foundation on which we can begin to transform STEM graduate education. Applying the

participant’s recommendations to prior research, and my own experience as an advisor,

instructor, educator, student, and researcher in STEM education, I highlight opportunities for

growth in this section.

Specifically, I provide opportunities related to broadening diversity awareness;

challenging bias and violence; emancipating academia; supporting the supporters; and sharing

resources and opportunities as depicted in Figure 8-A.

Individual faculty, staff, and administrators cannot be solely responsible for making the

systemic changes needed to ameliorate power dynamics. These opportunities are meant to be

part of iterative and ongoing process. We must also consider sustainability and self-care in

choosing the ways we engage in such opportunities (Sins Invalid, 2019). Making one or two

changes at a time can have a profound impact.

Thus, I not only discuss opportunities for individual faculty, staff, students, and

administrators. I also discuss opportunities for institutional, departmental, and program

policymakers and leaders. Further, I point to opportunities for political leaders, unions, and

legislators at the national level.

 Page 249

1. Broadening diversity awareness and valuation

Opportunities for growth

2. Challenging bias and violence

3. Emancipating learners and educators

4. Supporting the supporters

5. Sharing resources and opportunities

Figure 8-A: Opportunities for growth

Figure 8-A descriptive text. Figure 8-A depicts a hierarchical organization Chart.

"Opportunities for growth" is listed at the highest level. There are five items connected to

“Opportunities for growth” which are listed in the subsequent level. These items include: (1)

Broadening diversity awareness and valuation; (2) Challenging bias and violence; (3)

Emancipating learners and educators; (4) Supporting the supporters; and (5) Sharing resources

and opportunities.

Individual academics, no matter their role, cannot be solely responsible for making

STEM graduate education more accessible. I want to emphasize that none of the following

opportunities I discuss are a one-size-fits-all solution. Rather, I hope they are jumping off points

for further consideration. I hope we might reflect on and discuss within our communities:

● How can we proactively plan for and learn from the variability in which we each

approach learning and education?

● What flexibility can we collaboratively build so that each academic journey can be

customized and adjusted for individual access needs?

 Page 250

● How can we continue to re-engage in this process as we learn and grow together?

I believe we can grow in our engagement in each of these opportunities through trial

and error. Again, I want to emphasize that no one can be solely responsible for our collective

journey toward inclusion. One of the tenants of dis/ability justice is its resistance to the artificial

sense of urgency. The movement urges us to prioritize taking care of ourselves and those

around us through self and collective care (Sins Invalid, 2019). It encourages us to move at a

pace we can sustain both individually and collectively (Sins Invalid, 2019). It can be important to

start “small.” Implementing one or two changes a semester can have a profound impact.

8.3.1. Awareness

Multiple participants emphasized how important the empathy and compassion of

others has been in their academic journey. Awareness of the diverse journeys people can have

in their lives and academia is an important building block of empathy. It can open the door to

inclusion. There are multiple approaches for broadening awareness. Awareness can be sought

through education, training, media, publications, conversation, and engagement with others.

We can collectively create or participate in an environment and community that is open to

growth, proactively strives to meet diverse access needs, and supports diverse representation.

Expanding awareness and learning about the experience of others can also help individuals and

communities identify and move beyond their assumptions. In the words of the participants:

I think step one needs to be increasing awareness. There is a lack of

understanding, empathy, support, and resources for students with dis/abilities. It
seems like a lot of people assume dis/ability exists but is uncommon. They say
“Yeah, but how many of those students are—we—going to have?” I wish people
thought more about how the numbers play out in their community. If you look at
the rates of depression, psychosis, traumatic brain injury, and dis/ability writ
 Page 251

large, this is happening. It's almost certainly happening to people they know who
are just not talking to them about it, particularly for invisible dis/abilities. I think
when professors, PIs, and other people in power are thinking about their
mentees the assumption has to be that this, dis/ability, is happening. We need to
give instructors and anyone in an academic position the opportunity to learn
more about what it could be like for a student with a dis/ability.

Let’s not forget we are working toward having more diversity in STEM so that we
have better research. People with different backgrounds are going to face
specific obstacles. If we assume populations don’t exist, at least not in our
backyards, then we're forgetting to include various different backgrounds.

8.3.1.1. Understanding diverse needs

As we seek to learn about diverse experiences, we must also learn how we can support

diverse access needs 49. This goes beyond knowing what others need to exist within a space. It

implicates self-awareness in our ongoing journey to broaden our awareness of others. Just as

human diversity is infinite, so too is the potential to broaden our awareness of the dynamic

experiences, ways of knowing, interests, values, ways of learning, expression, and engagement

of ourselves and others. Fortunately, there are more resources available every day that can

help us broaden our awareness.

We have the opportunity to seek out knowledge through media and publications that

center the experiences of diverse individuals. We can engage in research publications that

explore the experiences of dis/ability in education and offer recommendations for inclusion

(e.g., Beardmore et al., 2022; Grimes et al., 2020; Pearson & Dickens, 2021; Sherwood & Kattari,

2021). Books geared toward the general public also offer insights into the experiences of others

(e.g., Williams & Ware, 2019), how we can identify bias (e.g., Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; B.

49 Access needs are what each human needs in order to access or fully participate in a space or activity (Sins Invalid,

2019), as described in Chapter 2.

 Page 252

Brown, 2021), and how we can do better (Kendi, 2019; Oluo, 2019). Outside of traditional

coursework, there are a variety of resources one can engage with online. Social media such as

YouTube include a variety of content creators with less apparent dis/abilities such as Jessica

Kellgren-Fozard, a Deaf, queer woman who does not “sound deaf” and Molly Burke, a blind

woman who wears makeup.

We can also pursue opportunities for professional development. The University of

Washington offers the AccessAdvance newsletter that highlights dis/ability-related research

articles, reports, opportunities, and webinars (University of Washington, n.d.). The American

Society of Engineering Education offers a collaborative network for engineering and computing

diversity (CoNECD) annual conference and multiple inclusion-focused communities of practice.

Educators can engage in massive online open courses (MOOCs) such as “Inclusive Teaching:

Supporting All Students in the College Classroom” (Columbia University, n.d.). Individuals and

groups wanting to further their awareness and practice engaging in inclusive conversations can

engage in SkillSoft and LinkedIn learning workshops such as “Skills for Inclusive Conversations:

Thriving with inclusive dialogue” taught by Mary-Fraces Winters.

We have the opportunity to use the resources all around us to help us engage in self-

reflection. The resources listed above can help us identify what we need to get curious about.

They can help us frame the questions we need to ask ourselves, such as those offered by Brené

Brown (2012b, 2012a, 2018, 2021): What assumptions might be informing our conversations,

actions, relationships, and culture? What assumptions might we inquire further about, rather

than taking as fact? What is and is not working? What perspectives have we not considered?

What might we learn from listening to others? What lines of inquiry do we need to open to
 Page 253

better understand what is really happening and to reality-check our confabulations? Such

resources can help us gain empathy regarding the diverse needs and experinces of individuals.

8.3.1.2. Understanding the options

The participants attributed some of their difficulty accessing their graduate education to

their instructors’ and advisors’ lack of knowledge regarding accessibility and accommodation

policies and options. The participants found themselves encountering rigid requirements, not

knowing they could ask for alternative pathways, what accommodations were available, nor

how to obtain accommodations.

Chapter 1 indicates that University students and employees may not know what

accommodations are available or how to obtain accommodations. This finding is not unique

(Debrand & Salzberg, 2005). As described in Chapter 1 and (Beardmore, 2022b), university

employees may expect dis/abled employees and students to identify what accommodations

they need request. Officials granting accommodations for dis/abled students and employees

may refuse to share what accommodations they have provided in the past or are able to

provide to dis/abled individuals. Beardmore (2022b) also notes how this process can be

particularly challenging for those who may be seeking accommodations for the first time, which

is a fairly common position dis/abled graduate students may find themselves in (Hosking, 2008).

Faculty often do not know about dis/ability policies and/or the student and employee

accommodation process (McGinty, 2016). Since graduate education can be fairly insular, this

can create cascading consequences. Chapter 7 indicates that this was especially true for

doctoral students whose exposure to the broader campus may be limited to their relationships
 Page 254

with their faculty research advisors, the other graduate students in their advisor’s lab, and their

coursework instructors. Thus, the only individuals graduate students may know to ask for help

may be the faculty and other students they interact with. If those individuals are unaware of

dis/ability policies and practices, graduate students may not be aware that there are policies or

resources that could help them.

This circumstance is not unique to the participants in this study. Responding to this

issue, Debrand and Slazberg (2005) offer a validated curriculum to provide training to

postsecondary faculty regarding student dis/ability accommodations. Molly King, a faculty

member at Santa Clara University also found this to be a common issue. Dr. King started a

document to provide individuals with a list of accommodations that have been previously

granted at post-secondary institutions. This document is available at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l3qu7SUhF49UJP3IoRJ1iCW6pCiqk0KU/edit#heading=h.

maa8i0kvxpsg. Dr. King invites you to add to the document if you know of other

accommodations that have been granted. This list provides dis/abled postsecondary students

and employees with the knowledge to help them advocate for support to better meet their

specific access needs.

Beyond any formal accommodation processes, it is also important for the people who

engage with faculty, students, and staff to understand what campus resources are available to

academics. Often campus resources may fall short of providing access (Beardmore, 2022b). It is

important for those who desire to support dis/abled academics to understand what resources

are available at the university. This includes understanding or knowing where to learn about the

purpose, scope, potential outcomes, and limitations of each resource, such as:
 Page 255

● Eligibility criteria for using each resource (e.g., citizenship status or campus role)

● Cost and requirements (e.g., medical documentation) for engaging with resources

● Process for accessing those resources/services (including different options)

● What a person can expect to experience when engaging with those resources (e.g.,

options the resource can provide, timeline of engagement, and confidentiality)

● Policies that could impact a person and when those policies can be petitioned (e.g.,

“leave of absence”, “time out”, degree requirements, curriculum, milestone timeline, &

format)

● Alternative resources offered in the community when there are barriers to using

university resources

8.3.2. Challenging bias and violence

There are multiple ways in which the participants and those around them found

opportunities to challenge bias and violence. They sometimes found support in shared identity

but also experienced growth in difference. Their communities were able to challenge bias and

violence through safety and bravery.

8.3.2.1. Safe spaces, representation, and positive role modeling

The first Story in Chapter 7 shares how the amalgamated participant found others who

also experienced PCOS. During a difficult and vulnerable time, they were able to find safety in

the company of others who had similar identities. The amalgamated participant felt relief in not

having to educate others or justify their pain. In this way, the safe space provided them with a

reprieve from the negative bias and violence that they had come to expect.
 Page 256

A safe space is a judgment-free environment that centers community, empathy, and

support (Harpalani, 2017). It recognizes differences and aims to reduce discomfort (Poynter &

Tubbs, 2008). It welcomes and affirms the expression of identity and experience without the

pressure to educate, the need to justify oneself, and the fear of repercussions (Palfrey, 2017). It

is helpful when people need support more than guidance or education (MedCircle, 2021). It can

be a fantastic opportunity for marginalized groups who have experienced chronic oppression

and abuse (MedCircle, 2021), especially with regard to dis/ability (Brenman et al., 2017).

Experiencing a safe space had a profound impact on the participant. They felt validated

knowing they were not alone. The belonging, safety, affirmation, and valuation they felt

because of this experience became a major factor in their own willingness to disclose their

identity to others, going forward.

The amalgamated participants’ professor had given the participant permission to put

their needs first. The professor recognized the participants’ agency in determining what they

needed including knowing when they needed to miss class. The participant wanted others to

know they would also be supported in their own self-advocacy. They began sharing their Story

to tell others that “Yes I'm here. I exist and I'm successful. You can be too.”

This form of representation is known as positive role modeling. Mendez (2022) and

Lichtenstein et. al (2014) describe the importance of positive role modeling in the persistence

of women and underrepresented minorities in academia. The participants in this study

described how role modeling helped them advocate for themselves, even when operating

within the oppressive standards of productivity. Positive representation and role modeling

played a significant role in their journey of acceptance, disclosure, and self-advocacy. Rather
 Page 257

than downplaying the impacts their dis/abilities had on their productivity, it helped them be

open about their needs. Moreover, it helped them prioritize their health rather than trying to

“push through” it.

8.3.2.2. Brave Spaces and calling-in violence

However, it is important to remember that the expectation of safety and comfort is

often a privilege of power (MedCircle, 2021). Thus, safe spaces are not always appropriate. The

fourth Story in Chapter 4 shares how cultivating a brave space transformed someone who had

previously antagonized the amalgamated participant into their fiercest supporter. A brave

space is a challenging environment that suspends judgment to approach controversy with

civility and curiosity (Palfrey, 2017). It recognizes difference and encourages members to sit

with discomfort. It welcomes active dialogue aimed to generate new understandings through

the sharing of experiences, owning intentions and impacts, and suspending preconceptions. It is

helpful when people desire to expand their awareness by learning about the worldview of

others (MedCircle, 2021). It can be a fantastic opportunity for exposing inequities and learning

how to challenge them.

Cultivating a brave space within a community of practice offers the opportunity to

pursue growth through interaction with those who are willing to challenge us. They can help us

normalize open dialogue that brings awareness to a diversity of perspectives and experiences.

Such spaces can provide us with the opportunity to engage in conversation with those who

have diverse opinions to identify and critically examine our assumptions (Hockings et al., 2008;

Koro-Ljungberg, 2007). They offer the opportunity for individuals to interrupt and challenge

their assumptions and beliefs (Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012).

 Page 258

By engaging in brave spaces, we can help each other identify our biases, assumptions,

and harmful behavior by “calling” each other “out” or more preferably by “calling” each other

“in.” Calling someone in refers to a process used to illuminate biases, assumptions, and harmful

behavior through curiosity, vulnerability, patience, and compassion. I offer an example in

Beardmore (2022a) when my friend and former supervisor, Phil, called me in. Many of us have

occupied all these roles before. Sometimes we may have held multiple roles at once.

It is important to emphasize that although targets may choose to participate in the

calling-in process, it is not their responsibility (Rosen et al., 2020; Sue, 2010). Furthermore, it is

not a target’s responsibility to listen to, educate, forgive, or hold their oppressors accountable.

Rather “calling someone in” is the responsibility of those witnessing the harmful behavior.

Several authors offer guidance for allies to call someone in (e.g., Sue, 2010; Thoreson &

Ramirez, 2020), instigators to respond to being called in (e.g., B. Brown, 2018; Oluo, 2019;

Patterson et al., 2002), and targets to engage in the process, should they want to so do (e.g.,

Rosen et al., 2020; Sue, 2010).

8.3.2.3. Cultivating both

However, it is important to remember that talking about certain issues can be triggering

and cause further harm (MedCircle, 2021). Returning to the first Story of Chapter 7, it is

important to note the importance of a community that can offer both brave spaces and safe

spaces, as well as everything in between. The amalgamated participant was afraid of asking for

help from their male labmates after previously experiencing gaslighting from male academics. A

conscientious community can offer separate spaces to fit the fluid needs of individuals within

the community. It can offer counter spaces to support those seeking community, empathy, and
 Page 259

support while offering communities of practice to those seeking to broaden their awareness

regarding the experiences of others.

Everyday conversations can be powerful mechanisms for individual and cultural change

(Mendoza, 2007). The participants expressed their desire to meet a professor (incumbent) who

was willing to start an open dialogue about dis/ability. Moreover, the participants believed such

conversations, especially if led by dis/abled incumbents, could create room for empathy and

constructive conversations that could help all parties learn and grow.

Positive role modeling can offer safety and change. It can also help break down cultural

norms. It can disrupt alienation. It can help individuals and communities to advocate for their

needs and say no to the toxic standards of productivity. The advocacy of needs and interests

that go beyond those normalized by prior incumbents can help others understand the diversity

of needs individuals may have in academia and how they can support those needs. Moreover, it

can help others become more aware of the assumptions they made about specific groups of

people.

8.3.3. Emancipating learners and educators

At a national level, we have the opportunity to usurp alienation through the

emancipation of our education system and society from private property. Many institutions of

postsecondary education in the United States have come to resemble a private enterprise

(Dudley-Marking & Baker, 2012; Jahan & Saber Mahmud, 2017; McIlwee & Robinson, 1992).

Promoted to success by a society that marginalizes difference rather than embracing it as a part

of human diversification, private actors have implemented a rigid hierarchy to further their own
 Page 260

interests (Cantwell, 2015). Dis/ability Justice demands we dismantle hierarchies (Sins Invalid,

2019). Reorienting postsecondary education as a public service, we have the opportunity to

restructure postsecondary institutions as public actors led by the students and communities

they serve. Rather than exploiting students for revenue, institutions could recognize the agency

of students in pursuing the knowledge they value through the pathways or means of

engagement they choose.

Perhaps the strongest way in which people in power supported the participants was by

honoring the participant’s agency. Rather than providing accommodations to help a student

overcome a barrier, rather than striving for equity within a system of oppression, these

individuals acted against the barriers. While it may be difficult to change the ways in which our

society approaches higher education, it is not impossible. National politics and governance are

most certainly outside of my area of expertise, so I will not guess how we could go about doing

this. Rather, I will explore opportunities for institutions and the individual academics within

them to usurp the oppressive status quo.

8.3.3.1. Interdependence

We have the opportunity to shift from norms that separate people from their

communities to a model that serves students within their communities. Chapter 5 describes

how a participant felt they were forced to leave their community for their education. Fearing

academic inbreeding, incumbent faculty are pressured to avoid hiring their own graduates into

post-doc positions and assistant professorships (Altbach et al., 2015). Perhaps the idea behind

the push to hire externally was to bring in the diverse knowledge of other institutions; however,

today’s technology has revolutionized our communication. We already have instantaneous

 Page 261

access to other institutions. We even have the opportunity spend considerable time (days,

weeks, months, and years) working with colleagues across the globe. As discussed in Chapter 5,

the result of this tradition is forcing people to isolate themselves from their communities to

access academia.

Dis/ability justice rejects colonial notions of independence as they dehumanize all

people and are especially harmful to people with body-minds who cannot or do not conform to

such standards (Sins Invalid, 2019). Instead, it envisions an interdependent future (Sins Invalid,

2019). Dis/ability justice aims to break down the isolation between people by building an

interdependent community (Sins Invalid, 2019). A strong sense of community acts as a buffer

against threats, provides a place in which one is free to express one’s identity, and helps one

deal with changes and difficulties in society at large. Community helps students navigate

changes and provides a space for students to express themselves authentically (Rovai &

Wighting, 2005).

We have the opportunity to encourage a sense of belonging among students, staff, and

faculty. Rather than operating in independent silos, institutional and departmental leadership

can create policies and practices that promote student, staff, and faculty affiliation with their

department and the institution overall (Lichtenstein et al., 2014). Leadership can also promote

policies that assist students and employees in balancing academic and professional

advancement with family responsibilities and personal interests (Lichtenstein et al., 2014).

We already build interdependent collaboration in joint research ventures (especially

NSF-funded multi-institutional grants). We can continue to encourage and reward collaboration

between institutions and within institutions. This includes prioritizing interdisciplinary research
 Page 262

collaboration as well as interdepartmental collaboration. Such attempts help disrupt power

differentials, as discussed in Chapter 7. We can also co-advise graduate students with other

faculty and staff. We can co-teach with multiple instructors. Moreover, we can build

interdependence in our instructional design by co-designing the curriculum with students.

In the classroom, we have the opportunity to take a social constructivist approach to

education (i.e., learning through social context). Learning environments that promote active

group construction of knowledge rather than transfer of knowledge provide opportunities to

transform a class of students into a knowledge community (Rovai & Wighting, 2005). While

group projects and teamwork have become popular in STEM classrooms, we also need to

consider how we can foster community.

8.3.3.2. Agency

Universities, programs, and departments have the opportunity to explore how they can

disrupt the exploitation of students. Over time, universities have shifted the responsibility for

instruction and research onto graduate students (Kroeger et al., 2018). Graduate teaching

assistants and research assistants have come to play an integral role in research production and

instructional offerings of universities (Kroeger et al., 2018). Yet, graduate students often do not

earn a livable wage (Colombo, 2020; re.Max, 2022). We are only paid for a fraction of the time

we put into our research and are even charged for the privilege of conducting research through

thesis or dissertation hours (Kroeger et al., 2018; re.Max, 2022). Moreover, the limited access

we have to funding, housing, healthcare, and our careers is often controlled by one or two

individuals, our faculty research advisor(s).

 Page 263

Many universities already have policies in place with the stated intention to protect

students from exploitation. For example, the University of Colorado Boulder restricts the

number of hours a graduate student can work to 20 hours per week (Student Employment,

n.d.). The policy allows graduate students to petition this requirement to work up to 25 hours

per week. While policy makers may claim that such a policy prevents faculty exploitation of

students, it may aggravate the issue. Faculty may expect students to “sacrifice” for their

education/career through unpaid labor (Mendez, 2022). In other words, such policies may allow

faculty to pay students for only part of their labor.

Moreover, the actual intention behind such policies may have more to do with the cost

of providing student employees with fair compensation and benefits (Colombo, 2020; re.Max,

2022). For example, the University of Colorado Boulder campus policies state that students may

work no more than 25 hours per week during the spring and fall semesters and 40 hours per

week during the summer semester (defined as 14 weeks). If a student works the full 40 hours

per week for 14 weeks in the summer semester and 25 hours per week for the remaining 38

weeks in a calendar year, their mean work rate comes out to around 29 hours per week (Senior

Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer, 2014). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care

Act (ACA) requires large employers to offer minimum essential health insurance coverage to

employees who work an average of 30 or more hours per week (Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act, 2010). While the University of Colorado Boulder campus policy does not

explicitly state that the limitation of work hours is due to the obligations laid out by the ACA, it

does state that “After the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA),

the campus took the opportunity to examine the number of hours student employees are
 Page 264

working per week and has therefore established this policy which sets certain limits on the

maximum number of work hours assigned to student employees at CU-Boulder” (Senior Vice

Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer, 2014).

Further, such a policy can disempower graduate students by prohibiting them from

engaging in paid leadership roles on campus. While having students focus on their research

may make them more likely to graduate, it may also limit their professional development and

career opportunities. Barring graduate students from professional work also may “justify”

paying them at lower student rates rather than at a level commensurate of the value they

contribute to the academic body of knowledge and the students they educate.

It is important to consider that dis/abled academics are less likely to receive funding

than their non-dis/abled peers (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics, 2019). Thus, such a policy can have a compounding impact on a student’s ability to

afford their education. It limits the roles in which students are permitted to work since some

roles would require more than the number of hours allowed.

One of the participants in this study noted the benefit of guaranteed funding. Some

institutions provide students with tuition waivers. For example, some Universities offer a tuition

waiver for students in their first year of graduate studies, before they choose a lab (Wofford &

Blaney, 2021). There are a few scholarships available for dis/abled graduate students (B. Davis,

n.d.). There are also a limited number of opportunities that tie funding to the student rather

than the faculty member (e.g., the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship

Program). Guaranteed funding recognizes the agency of students in choosing a research topic in
 Page 265

accordance with their needs and interests. It may also give students more negotiating power in

setting their own work hours and research deadlines.

Even in the absence of guaranteed funding, there are other ways to reduce the financial

burden placed on students. For example, institutions could eliminate tuition associated with

dissertation or thesis credits. They could also eliminate student fees. After losing a hard-fought

battle with the graduate student union, the University of Colorado Boulder now provides full

student fee remission to all graduate students on teaching and research appointments (United

Campus Workers Colorado (Communication Workers of America Local 7799), 2023).

Universities also have the opportunity to compensate students with employment

benefits for the substantial value they bring to their institutions. This is a complex issue which

would involve a significant cost; however, discussion of the complexities and costs of providing

benefits to student employees is beyond the scope of this dissertation. A few examples of

benefits that could be granted to student employees include health insurance; comprehensive

transition care for transgender and nonbinary students; and even coverage for out-of-pocket

medical costs such as copays and deductibles (especially for students seeking medical

documentation to obtain a dis/ability accommodation). Benefits could also include housing;

meals or other food benefits programs; short term and long term dis/ability insurance;

childcare; and fertility care (e.g., egg freezing for students delaying starting a family to

accommodate their graduate studies or artificial insemination for same sex couples). University

policies could be adjusted to allow Graduate students to work enough hours to be eligible for

leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or even paid FMLA leave (e.g., the Colorado FAMLI

program). If students had the ability to access such benefits while transitioning between faculty
 Page 266

research advisors, they would be able to leave toxic work environments without losing access

to some of their basic human needs.

Such an approach highlights the importance of student agency in protecting students

against exploitation. It is important to iteratively build flexibility into policy, evaluate the

impacts of policy, and revise the policy in accordance with the evolving nature of student

needs. Universities must engage the leadership of students in designing policies that “protect”

student interests. Graduate students similarly have the opportunity to increase their power

over their employment through unionization and collective bargaining (Kroeger et al., 2018).

8.3.3.3. Flexibility

The participants noted encountering rigid requirements in their graduate coursework

and research, as indicated in Chapter 1. They did not know they could ask for alternative

pathways to demonstrate knowledge. The participants also described the potential of flexibility

to help them to not only engage in coursework but also to contribute to the body of knowledge

by generating new knowledge. Moreover, flexibility improved their quality of life.

We have the opportunity to consider what flexibility we can offer in defining and

meeting core objectives for learning and knowledge production. This means proactively

implementing universal design to broaden access rather than permitting reactive

accommodations. Beardmore et. al (2022) expands on how programs as well as individual

faculty and staff can acknowledge and support student agency in determining and meeting

learning objectives.
 Page 267

8.3.3.4. Trust

The participants in this study noted how someone in power simply trusting students was

extraordinarily helpful. The participants found that being trusted to know what they needed

was liberating. The participants shared how others believing their requests around access were

legitimate prevented them from enduring the harm of forced intimacy. That is, they were not

forced to exhibit extreme vulnerability in order to exist in a hostile ableist environment

(Mingus, 2017). They were not forced to retraumatize themself by disclosing details of their

dis/ability for the professor to accommodate their needs.

Some universities are striving toward trust. For example, leaders at institutions such as

the University of Colorado Boulder (Niedringhaus, 2018) and South High School in Minneapolis,

Minnesota (Pountney, 2019) are encouraging faculty to not require doctor's notes to excuse

absences due to illness. Similarly, the University of Colorado Boulder is encouraging faculty to

consider the pros and cons of attendance policies before implementing one (Center for

Teaching & Learning, n.d.).

There is much more we need to be doing to eliminate carceral pedagogy. We must stop

other “cop shit” such as the automatic implementation of plagiarism detection software and

forcing students to turn their cameras on in remote courses (Swuager, 2020). Such policies

disproportionately harm nonnormative students. We must engage in grassroots abolitionist

methods to hold faculty and staff accountable to students. Trust is an essential part of

emancipation. We must honor our student’s agency.

In the words of the participants, as previously published in (Beardmore, 2022b):

 Page 268

So, just let folks show what they know in a way that works for them, and don't
assume that everybody is just trying to trick you or fool you. It's already hard
enough. Just for a moment, believe that it's real and think about “God, if this
really was real, how hard it must be for this person right now?”. And then just
keep thinking that because it's real. Believe students. Trust them. And make
sure to continue sharing resources. And let people change and grow…
[Dis/abled/differently abled] folks are awesome and have a lot to give. They've
already made it through so much to get in your doorway.

8.3.4. Supporting the supporters

The academic community, policymakers, and leadership has several opportunities to

support students. One way institutions can promote inclusion is by supporting the supporters.

Multiple ways to support the supporters are elaborated on in the subsequent paragraphs. I

provide examples below.

8.3.4.1. Offering training

Prior literature has recommended that universities and departments offer, incentivize,

and/or require training for instructors and advisors (Hockings, 2010; National Academies of

Sciences Engineering, and Medicine, 2018; Roberts et al., 2011). Similar to prior literature, the

participants in this study recommended Universities provide training programs to faculty and

staff regarding the opportunities for growth described above. Such training programs could

help instructors and advisors identify and redesign problematic policies, practices, and

curriculum. They could help instructors and advisors use a motivational interviewing approach

to instruction and advising using resources (e.g., NACADA, n.d.; Ockenfels, 2014). They could

also help those who interact with students to learn and practice how to approach, respond to,

listen to, interact with, and offer support to students who are struggling, especially those in

crisis, as recommended by the participants. Additionally, they could provide guidance on what
 Page 269

topics and language are appropriate and inappropriate to broach in academic settings,

including:

● what questions to ask when people disclose a dis/ability, ask for accommodation, or

share they are struggling

● how to identify potentially triggering topics, language, behaviors, and content as well as

provide visual and/or verbal warnings

8.3.4.2. Coaching and consultations

Another way in which departments, programs, and universities can support those who

are supporting students is by offering and normalizing regular coaching consultations. Such

consultations can provide individualized support in all the previously identified areas for

growth. Some institutions already have pedagogical/andragogical 50 coaches, instructional

designers, and other points of contact who can review curriculum, course materials, and

programmatic strategies. If such individuals are not available at an institution, independent

consultants can be hired to evaluate courses, curriculum, and programs. These individuals and

the agencies they work for may be able to illuminate opportunities for improvement or even

help individuals, departments, programs, colleges, and universities create a strategic plan to

center inclusion.

50 The term pedagogy was originally used to refer to the art and science of teaching children, whereas andragogy
referred to that of adults. Sometimes these terms are used to represent separate sets of assumptions about learners
of any age; however, pedagogy is also often used to refer to learners of any age.
 Page 270

8.3.4.3. Point of contact for questions regarding student support

One way in which departments, programs, and universities can support faculty and staff

is by providing and widely publicizing points of contact for faculty and staff to go to when they

have questions about supporting their employees and students. That is, a place they can go

when they do not know what to do. Normalizing the use of such points of contact would be

essential to overcoming the “shame” of not knowing what to do that was mentioned by the

amalgamated participant in Chapter 7 Story 5. It would be especially important to make sure

points of contact are available to respond to questions, meet with faculty and staff, and

potentially intervene in situations in a timely manner. If such a service is not able to respond for

days it might be too late for them to provide guidance or assistance.

8.3.4.4. Offering psychological counseling

It can be expected that faculty and staff may experience some difficult emotions in

supporting students in difficult situations. Educators face chronic stress and trauma, especially

while serving communities that endure high levels of adversity (McCormick, 2021). In the

absence of the systemic change needed to reduce such adversity, it is important to provide

educators with help, as indicated in Chapter 7 Story 5. Without access to help, educators were

more likely to push themselves to the breaking point including illness, burnout, detachment,

and leaving the profession (McCormick, 2021). Offering free, confidential, and readily accessible

psychological therapy to faculty and staff is a must.

 Page 271

8.3.5. Sharing resources and opportunities

In my experience, academics and activists often tend to work in silos. We often don’t

have access to shared resources. We are often unaware of what others are doing to meet

similar goals in their own environments and programs.

One of the things that became abundantly clear as I conducted interviews for this

research and engaged with others after presenting some of my findings at conferences was the

need for community. I invited anyone (dis/abled or ally) who had expressed interest in joining

some kind of dis/ability-focused community with me to join me in brainstorming what we

wanted in such a community. After holding a series of brainstorming meetings, I was

overwhelmed by all of the ideas. We need a community of practice to advocate for access in

postsecondary education. We need a brave space. We need a safe space. I am hoping we can

build these spaces as we come together. But for now, as a first step, we have started a virtual

monthly happy hour. It is a closed group for now. It is open to anyone involved in

postsecondary education/academia (e.g., educators, students, administrators, faculty, or staff)

who identifies as dis/abled, who has one or more apparent or less apparent dis/abilities, who is

neurodiverse, who struggles with mental health, and/or who endures chronic illness.

If you are interested in joining the community please email me at

dcbeardmore@gmail.com. I also plan to post details about the community on my website at

dcbeardmore.com and/or create a new website for the community.

Are you unsure if you are experiencing a dis/ability? When I invited participants to join

the study there were a fair number of people who were uncertain of whether or not their

experience “was considered” a dis/ability. I want to validate that reaction. I think people often
 Page 272

care a whole heck of a lot about others. I know I do not want to “take something away” from

others—be it an identity, resources, or even the opportunity to share their experiences or

engage in community. However, in my opinion, if you think you experience something that

might be a dis/ability that is what matters. If you are still unsure, I provide my definition of

dis/ability in Chapter 2. I know a lot of people, especially those without immediately obvious or

apparent dis/abilities, who struggle with this. I think many of us would tell you that what

matters is how you identify, even when we forget to extend that same grace to ourselves. Each

journey with dis/ability is unique and those of us in the community would love to be here to

support and celebrate you, wherever you are in your journey.

If you would like to suggest additional resources and recommendations I invite you to

share them in the Resources for dis/abled academics google doc. I hope that this can be a

“living” document as we learn and grow together. I have learned so much from engaging with

other dis/abled people and allies. I am in awe of the wealth of knowledge we have! There is so

much I still want and need to learn. I am excited to continue engaging with others to learn from

one another, offer each other support, and foster community with each other.

8.4. Limitations and future research

This research had multiple limitations. As the principal designer of this research, I

acknowledge the limitations in my own personal and social awareness. Further, I acknowledge

the limitations of the language I use and cite in this dissertation as I learn about myself and

others while growing my worldviews, language, and practices. There were also multiple

limitations in the scope of my research interests, as described below.

 Page 273

Graduate students are not the only people in academia with dis/abilities. This

dissertation studies the experiences of graduate students since their experiences provide

insight into the variety of roles they may occupy in the academy. Their experience gives us

some perspective on what it might be like for dis/abled undergraduate students, as graduate

students also take coursework. Their experiences give us some perspective of what it might be

like for dis/abled faculty, as graduate students often teach and conduct research. Similarly,

dis/abled graduate students employed in staff roles give us limited insight into the experiences

of dis/abled staff. This research is meant to be a starting point that future research can expand

upon. As discussed in Chapter 1, a limited amount of research explores the experiences of

dis/abled undergraduate students. Additional research is needed that explores the

interpersonal experiences of each group and how they experience their program’s climate,

culture, and power dynamics.

This research presents a limited range of relationships. All participants performed some

level of graduate research. The faculty research advisor’s or principal investigator’s power over

graduate students, especially those pursuing a Ph.D., was determined to be highly important to

a graduate student’s success. Further research is needed to understand the interpersonal

relationships and power dynamics between dis/abled graduate students and people in a variety

of roles.

The context of whether a graduate student is required to do research to complete their

degree is also important. The extent of power a student has in comparison to faculty is

significantly influenced by the importance of conducting research to the completion of their

degree. Master’s programs sometimes offer a coursework-only option and a research option.
 Page 274

Students completing a coursework-only based graduate degree are not forced into such a close

relationship with a single faculty advisor.

Additional research is needed to continue to explore the experiences of dis/abled

graduate STEM students. While this study explores the experience of members in this

population, the sample size was small. Additional research is needed to tease out additional

ways people experience dis/ability in STEM programs in postsecondary education and the ways

in which dis/abled people experience and navigate postsecondary education. While the pool of

participants I recruited for the study represent a variety of identities, these identities are by no

means representative of the wider population. For example, the participants only identified as

belonging to a few different racial and ethnic groups. Similarly, none of the participants

indicated they identified as men nor Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB).

The identities discussed thus far are only a small sample of factors that could impact the

experience of dis/ability. Little research addresses the experiences of individuals in STEM

programs who previously experienced incarceration, involuntary confinement/hospitalization,

human trafficking, and/or slavery. Similarly, there is a limited amount of research concerning

the experiences of individuals who have experienced debilitating or dis/abling trauma but who

have not been diagnosed with a trauma-related dis/ability. Experiences of surviving a natural

disaster, war, abuse, violent crime, loss of a loved one(s), or other forms of trauma (e.g.,

intergenerational trauma or secondhand trauma) may have profound impacts on the person's

health as well as their perception and experience of the world.

As discussed in the previous chapter, dis/ability is difficult to define. Studies that limit

participant pools to individuals identifying as having a dis/ability may select out participants
 Page 275

with a variety of experiences with dis/ability. As one example, people who are currently or who

have previously suffered from a chronic illness (e.g., diabetes, cancer, substance abuse

disorder, or HIV) or acute illness (E.g., Covid 19 or long Covid) may or may not identify as having

a dis/ability. Yet, they may experience debilitating side effects of the disease or consequences

of its treatment even if they are currently in remission from the disease (e.g., cancer and

chemotherapy). Further, witnessing a loved one living through such experiences (and many

other experiences) could impact an individual’s perceptions and experiences. Further research

is needed to understand how holding such identities, as well as many other identities, might

impact the experiences of dis/abled students, faculty, and staff.

8.4.1. Methods

There were multiple limitations in this study regard to methods. The role of dis/ability in

the participants' experiences as compared to the experiences of individuals who are not

dis/abled is unclear in this research. However, such a comparison was not the goal of this

research methodology (Waterman, 2019) and theoretical framework (Brayboy, 2005).

Additional limitations are described below.

While I acknowledge the multidimensional nature of the participants’ experiences, I do

not explicitly explore the intricate impacts of their multidimensionality. I made this decision as I

wanted to prioritize the participants’ privacy. Future research is needed to compare methods

for deidentifying intersectional/multidimensional narratives.

A collectivist research approach or option is needed to better align this research with

the Indigenous research concept of “Story”, as described in Chapter 3. “Story” is often

 Page 276

produced from focus groups designed to center oral Storytelling (Waterman, 2019). However, I

chose to collect data through one-on-one interviews. This individualist approach may have

increased the privacy and comfort of potential participants who exist in individualist cultures,

and were likely strangers to one another. However, this style may have decreased the comfort

of people existing in collectivist cultures who may draw emotional support from their

communities. A Storytelling protocol could benefit collective narratives as the data collection

approach encourages participants to bounce off of, expand on, and contrast their Stories to the

Stories of others. While Harvey’s process did provide some elements of this collective data

collection approach, data was filtered through the researcher’s perspective. Future research

protocols should consider how to prioritize the comfort of individuals from both individualist

and collectivist cultures. Future research protocols should also consider the benefits of

matching collectivist data collection methods in the formation of collective narratives and/or

“Stories.”

Future research exploring and comparing the experiences of participants and

researchers is needed for different levels of participant engagement such as those used in

Phase 1 and 2 of this research. My goal throughout this research was to promote the comfort of

the participants. The benefits of a process that reduces the amount of time participants spend

sharing their Stories versus a process that better recognizes the participant’s agency over how

their Stories are analyzed and told are unclear. Additional research is also needed to better

understand the emotional impact of each method on researchers. Additional survey questions

and interview questions could be included in future research for this purpose. Similarly,

interview transcripts could be coded for instances of the participants “breaking the fourth
 Page 277

wall.” Specifically, such coding could identify why they chose to participate in the study and/or

describe their experience participating in the study. Such an analysis has not been conducted

yet as it is outside the scope of this dissertation.

8.4.2. Context

There were several limitations related to the context of this study. A few examples are

provided in the following paragraphs. These include time, culture, and location.

As stated in Chapter 3, the context of this study was bound to the U.S. The prior

literature and theoretical framing I provide in this dissertation are predominantly limited to

studies conducted in Canada, the U.S., and the United Kingdom. Although the culture of

dis/ability varies among subcultures in the U.S., it is even more diverse across diverse global

contexts (Ghai, 2002; Mckenzie, 2010; Watermeyer et al., 2011). I have some personal

experience living as a person with dis/abilities and interacting with other people with

dis/abilities in Uganda. I believe studies on dis/ability in a broader array of global contexts are

needed. This is especially true since the available literature is predominantly limited to high

income, heavily industrialized nations in the North American and Western European continents

(Ghai, 2002; Goodley, 2011; Grech, 2009); however, I also believe it is important to first

understand dis/ability and disrupt ableism in my own society. I, being a part of the target

population, have an intimate knowledge of the oppression of the U.S. higher education STEM

culture and have a stake in dis/ability activism in this specific context. Additionally, I am ABLE to

do this research in the U.S., whereas my dis/abilities prohibit me from sustained travel in most

other countries.
 Page 278

There seems to be a limited amount of literature regarding academic alienation, the

subject of Chapter 5, in U.S. contexts. The literature referenced in Chapter 5 regarding

academic alienation in postsecondary education is based on samples of participants in Iran

(Ahmadi et al., 2021). Even the literature focused on secondary education is limited to Austria

(Hascher & Hagenauer, 2010) and Ethiopia (Atnafu, 2012). Some studies are more broad

focusing on the general population in a cluster of U.S. counties (Dean, 1961).

This research was conducted during the Covid pandemic. Further research is needed to

understand how the pandemic may have influenced the experiences of the participants. For

example, the Covid-19 pandemic has increased the prevalence of anxiety worldwide (World

Health Organization, 2022). Further research is needed to understand the changes brought

about in the needs of individuals and the support they received during the pandemic. This is

especially true regarding the role and impacts of academic alienation.

8.4.3. Additional areas of interest

Given the dearth of current research on the experiences of graduate students with

dis/abilities, there are other areas that should be prioritized in future research. I have listed a

few examples of topics below. These include additional exploration of the relationships

between dis/abled people and additional parties (such as staff, family, and medical

professionals). Further research is needed to explore the role of institutional policy and

universal design in the oppression and/or liberation of dis/abled academics.

Participants shared about their experiences with others. This included their

relationships with other graduate students, course professors, deans, other department/college
 Page 279

leadership, those supervising their research (faculty research advisors/principal investigators),

those supervising other forms of academic employment (e.g., professors supervising them in

their capacity as teaching participants), and agents of campus offices such as dis/ability

services. It is unclear if the participants shared about their interpersonal interactions and power

dynamics with staff graduate academic advisors (those enrolling them in coursework and

tracking their completion of departmental and college-level degree requirements). Further

research is needed to explore the participants’ relationships with other parties in addition to

the relationships explored in Chapter 7.

Participants also shared about their relationships and the power dynamics they

experienced with people outside of academics including their friends, prior/current work

colleagues, medical professionals, and family. These relationships are important as they

impacted the participants’ ability to afford diagnostic testing, receive an accurate diagnosis, and

obtain the necessary paperwork for obtaining a dis/ability accommodation. Further research is

needed to understand the role of a deficit mindset, mistrusting students, gatekeeping

resources, medical gaslighting, and access to obtaining medical proof of dis/ability (cost, time,

insurance, parental consent) in accessing graduate education.

Further research is also needed to explore the role of dis/ability services and

institutional policy in the oppression and/or liberation of dis/abled academics. Research is

needed to identify the accommodation policies, accessibility resources, and degree

requirements institutions, STEM programs/departments, and/or individual faculty already have.

Similarly, future research is needed to further explore the role of internalized ableism in

dis/abled graduate students, faculty, and staff. It is important to expand Kumari Campbell’s
 Page 280

(2008a) work to understand how internalized ableism impacts and is impacted by structural

barriers in a variety of actors and settings.

A content analysis of university websites could be conducted to determine how

graduate student accommodations are portrayed and approached across the United States.

This could include what resources are advertised, the language used to describe such resources,

and what elements of graduate education such services can be applied to. Further research is

also needed to understand the gaps in the current policies and resources of institutional

policies/offices and program departments.

Neither the interview questions nor the original study design incorporated universal

design (UD) for learning as an explicit lens to explore the participant’s experiences. Research

specifically targeting ways in which educators and students have engaged in UD is needed to

further uncover the impact it can have in a variety of circumstances. Further research is needed

to explore and elucidate opportunities to use universal design in a variety of settings and

applications. Future research might also explore the interplay of academic freedom and

guaranteeing access needs are met.

While I provide a limited sampling of recommendations regarding training, further

research is needed to learn how we can proactively support all individuals in learning about the

diverse needs and experiences of those they may encounter. Further research could explore

the barriers and opportunities to better support a wide variety of access needs. Research and

activism are needed to reconstruct the accommodation and disclosure process to be more

universally supportive. Such research could explore how academia might move toward a

justice-based approach (eliminating systemic and institutional oppression) rather than equity
 Page 281

(providing fixes/accommodations to specific people). Additionally, future research might

explore how community-based educational models might be used in graduate STEM programs

to better support students and reduce the power differential between graduate student

researchers and faculty.

8.5. Closing

Justice is the active, ongoing, and restorative process of identifying and eliminating the

barriers that create exclusion in the first place. Inclusion means ensuring each student has

access to everything they require to fully exist in a space and fully participate in their education.

This means fostering a culture that embraces difference rather than fearing it. Inclusion

necessitates that we must get to know, value, and welcome our students, not only as

individuals but as arbiters of knowledge.

Dis/ability Justice orients us to a collective dream of creating a world in which all body-

minds are valued and known as beautiful (Sins Invalid, 2019). We have the opportunity to learn

about the diversity of body-minds who can engage in and generate STEM knowledge. To do

this, we must start by broadening awareness of the diverse experiences and needs of

academics as individuals. In this process, we must prioritize those who have faced the highest

levels of disempowerment, students.

In broadening our awareness we have the opportunity to acknowledge the impact of

alienating environments (Chapter 5), the culture of productivity (Chapter 6), and interpersonal

power dynamics (Chapter 7) on all individuals in the STEM community, especially those who

have yet to join. We have the opportunity to examine our norms and expectations. We also
 Page 282

have the opportunity to reconsider what forms of knowledge production and what

contributions we deem valuable. We can discover what and who we miss out on because of the

limitations in our current expectations, norms, and values.

This dissertation explored the experiences of STEM graduate students with less

apparent or nonapparent dis/abilities in their graduate academic journey. It found that the

participants navigated alienating environments which impeded their professional advancement,

social relationships, well-being, health, and academics. It found that the participants

experienced a culture of productivity that devalued them. This dissertation found that the

interpersonal relationships the students had with faculty and staff had a significant power to

harm or support them. It called attention to how these phenomena related to the apathy,

ignorance, and subjugation the participants encountered. It then offered opportunities to

broaden awareness, enact emancipation, and lean into the valuation of diversity.
 Page 283

CHAPTER 9. REFERENCES

Academics anonymous. (2018, May). Academia is built on exploitation. We must break this

vicious circle. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-

network/2018/may/18/academia-exploitation-university-mental-health-professors-

plagiarism

Aguboshim. (2021). Adequacy of sample size in a qualitative case study and the dilemma of data

saturation: A narrative review. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(3),

180–187. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2021.10.3.0277

Ahmadi, A., Ziapour, A., lebni, J. Y., & Mehedi, N. (2021). Prediction of Academic Motivation Based

on Variables of Personality Traits, Academic Self-Efficacy, Academic Alienation and Social

Support in Paramedical Students. International Quarterly of Community Health Education,

0272684X211004948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684X211004948

Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The

New Press.

Allen-Ramdial, S.-A. A., & Campbell, A. G. (2014). Reimagining the Pipeline: Advancing STEM

Diversity, Persistence, and Success. BioScience, 64(7), 612–618.

https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu076

Altbach, P. G., Yudkevich, M., & Rumbley, L. E. (2015). Academic inbreeding: Local challenge,

global problem. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(3), 317–330.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9391-8
 Page 284

American Civil Liberties Union. (2022). Race, Ethnicity, or National Origin-Based Discrimination.

Know Your Rights. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/discrimination-on-the-basis-

of-race-ethnicity-or-national-origin

American Psychiatric Association. (2022a). Anxiety Disorders. In Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual of Mental Disorders (Vol. 1–0). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.x05_Anxiety_Disorders

American Psychiatric Association. (2022b). Neurodevelopmental Disorders. In Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Vol. 1–0). American Psychiatric Association

Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.x01_Neurodevelopmental_Disorde

rs

American Psychiatric Association. (2022c). Trauma and Stressor Related Disorders. In Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Vol. 1–0). American Psychiatric Association

Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.x07_Trauma_and_Stressor_Relate

d_Disorders

American Psychological Association. (2017). What is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy? Clinical

Practice Guideline Fo the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/cognitive-behavioral

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, no. Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990).
 Page 285

Andrews, E. E., Mona, L. R., Pilarski, C. R., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Lund, E. M., & Balter, R. (2019).

#SaytheWord: A disability culture commentary on the erasure of “disability.”

Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(2), 111–118.

Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing

at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511

Annamma, S. A., Ferri, B., & Connor, D. J. (2018). Critical Race Theory: Exploring the Intersectional

Lineage, Emergence, and Potential Futures of DisCrit in Education. Review of Research in

Education, 42(1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759041

Anonymous. (2003, February 14). "De Nile ain’t just a river!"... Parenting a Child with

LD or ADHD. https://www.ldonline.org/comment/35140#comment-35140

Anonymous. (2012). Abuse of Phd students. Bullying of Academics in Higher Education.

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2012/01/abuse-of-phd-students.html

Anonymous. (2022, August 22). Why I’m Planning to Leave My Ph.D. Program My family can’t

live on $17,000 a year. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-im-planning-to-leave-my-ph-d-program

Answer, M. (2020). Academic Labor and the Global Pandemic: Revisiting Life-Work Balance under

COVID-19. In M. Subramaniam (Ed.), Navigating Careers in the Academy: Gender, Race,

and Class: Vol. 3(2) (pp. 5–13). https://www.purdue.edu/butler/working-paper-

series/2020/special%20new.php
 Page 286

Appleby, D. C., & Appleby, K. M. (2006). Kisses of death in the graduate school application

process. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 19–24.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3301_5

Arredondo, P., Miville, M. L., Capodilupo, C. M., & Vera, T. (2022). Women and the Challenge of

STEM Professions Thriving in a Chilly Climate. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

030-62201-5

Artiles, A. J. (2013). Untangling the Racialization of Disabilities: An Intersectionality Critique

Across Disability Models. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 329–

347. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000271

Atnafu, M. (2012). Motivation, Social Support, Alienation from the School and their Impact on

Students’ Achievement in Mathematics: The Case of Tenth Grade Students. Ethiopian

Journal of Education and Sciences, 8(1), 53–74.

Auterman, B. L. (2011). structural Ableism: Disability, Institutionalized Discrimination, and Denied

Citizenship [Sarah Lawrence College]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/structural-ableism-disability-

institutionalized/docview/873567441/se-2?accountid=14503

Baglieri, S., Valle, J. W., Connor, D. J., & Gallagher, D. J. (2011). Disability Studies in Education:

The Need for a Plurality of Perspectives on Disability. Remedial and Special Education,

32(4), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362200

Bairaktarova, D. N., & Pilotte, M. K. (2020). Person or thing oriented: A comparative study of

individual differences of first-year engineering students and practitioners. Journal of

Engineering Education, 109(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20309

 Page 287

Ballerini, V., & Feldblum, M. (2021). Immigration Status and Postsecondary Opportunity: Barriers

to Affordability, Access, and Success for Undocumented Students, and Policy Solutions.

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 80, 161–186.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12380

Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. Delacorte

Press.

Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled People in Britain: Vol. null (null, Ed.).

Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2010). Exploring disability: A Sociological Introduction (2nd ed.). Polity.

Barnhardt, B., & Ginns, P. (2014). An alienation-based framework for student experience in

higher education: New interpretations of past observations in student learning theory.

Higher Education, 68(6), 789–805. JSTOR.

Beardmore, D. C. (2022a). A call to make Queer erasure, violence, and battle fatigue in STEM

visible. In K. Cross, B. Hughes, & S. Farrell (Eds.), Queering STEM Culture in US Higher

Education: Navigating Experiences of Exclusion in the Academy (pp. 57–71). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003169253

Beardmore, D. C. (2022b). Navigating the academy in the absence of graduate disability

accommodation policies. 2022 CoNECD (Collaborative Network for Engineering &

Computing Diversity), New Orleans, Louisiana. https://peer.asee.org/39130

Beardmore, D. C., Sandekian, R., & Bielefeldt, A. (2022, August). Supporting STEM graduate

students with dis/abilities: Opportunities for Universal Design for Learning. 2022 ASEE

Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN. https://peer.asee.org/41796

 Page 288

Beddoes, K. (2021). Examining Privilege in Engineering Socialization Through the Stories of

Newcomer Engineers. Engineering Studies, 13(2), 158–179.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2021.1958824

Beilke, J. R., & Yssel, N. (1999). The Chilly Climate for Students With Disabilities in Higher

Education. College Student Journal, 33(3), 364.

Bell, C. (2011). Introduction: Doing Representational Detective Work. In C. Bell (Ed.), Blackness

and disability: Critical expamination and cultural interventions (pp. 1–7). Mishigan State

University Press.

Bernstein, R. (2015). Depression afflicts almost half of STEM graduate students at UC Berkeley.

Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/depression-afflicts-almost-half-stem-

graduate-students-uc-berkeley

Billo, E., & Hiemstra, N. (2013). Mediating Messiness: Expanding Ideas of Flexibility, Reflexivity,

and Embodiment in Fieldwork. Gender, Place and Culture, 20(3), 313–328.

Bohman, J. (2005). Critical Theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2005/entries/critical-theory/

Bourke, B. (2016). Meaning and Implications of Being Labelled a Predominantly White Institution.

College and University, 91(3), 12-18,20-21. ProQuest Central; Social Science Premium

Collection.

Brayboy, B. M. K. J. (2005). Toward a Tribal Critical Race Theory in education. Urban Review, 37(5),

425–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-005-0018-y

Brekus, C. A., Gilpin, W. C., Albanese, C. L., Bennett, J. B., Blumhofer, E. L., Braude, A., Brekus, C.

A., Bross, K., Davis, R. L., Evans, C. J., Fessenden, T., Flake, K., Gilpin, W. C., Hoover, S. M.,
 Page 289

Kilde, J. H., Kling, D. W., Lee, T. S., McKanan, D., McNally, M. D., … Sarna, J. D. (2011).

Introduction. In C. A. BREKUS & W. C. GILPIN (Eds.), American Christianities (pp. 1–24).

University of North Carolina Press; JSTOR.

http://www.jstor.org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.5149/9780807869147_brekus.3

Brenman, D. L., Ghiaciuc, S., Schoolcraft, V. L., & Vandeberg, K. A. (2017). I Am Different / So Are

You: In S. L. Kerschbaum, L. T. Eisenman, & J. M. Jones (Eds.), Negotiating Disability (pp.

345–362). University of Michigan Press; JSTOR.

http://www.jstor.org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.9426902.24

Bridges, D. (2017a). Philosophy in Educational Research: Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and

Quality. In Education, Philosophy and Well-being: New Perspectives on the Work of John

White. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49212-4

Bridges, D. (2017b). ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’: The Ethics of Outsider Research. In D. Bridges

(Ed.), Philosophy in Educational Research: Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and Quality (pp.

341–361). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49212-

4_20

Briziarelli, M., & Flores, J. (2018). Professing Contradictions: Knowledge Work and the Neoliberal

Condition of Academic Workers. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open

Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 16, 114–128.

https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v16i1.872

Brown, A. (2022, June 7). About 5% of young adults in the U.S. say their gender is different from

their sex assigned at birth. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/07/about-

 Page 290

5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-

birth/

Brown, B. (2012a). Daring Greatly (1st ed.). Penguin Random House.

Brown, B. (2012b). The Power of Vulnerability. Sounds True.

Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work, tough conversations, whole hearts. Random House.

Brown, B. (2021). Atlas of the heart: Mapping meaningful connection and the language of human

experince (1st ed.). Random House.

Brown, L. (2022). Identity-First Language. Autisity Self Advocay Network.

https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/

Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2020). Ableism in Academia: Theorizing experiences of disabilities and

chronic illnesses in higher education. UCL Press.

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucb/detail.action?docID=6358294

Brown, V., & Nichols, T. (2013). Pregnant and Parenting Students on Campus Policy and Program

Implications for a Growing Population. Educational Policy, 27, 499–530.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812453995

Bryant Jr., J. A. (2021). Aknowledge—And Act: American higher education has failed Native

American students again and again, and colleges and universities must critically examine

their campuses and curricula, argues James A. Bryant Jr. Inside Higher Ed.

https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/03/19/colleges-must-critically-examine-

how-they-educate-native-american-students-

opinion#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBecause%20Native%20Americans%20(both%20American,d

ata%20reporting%20due%20to%20small
 Page 291

Burman, E. (2008). Developments: Child, Image, Nation: Vol. null (null, Ed.).

Campbell, C. M., Dortch, D., & Burt, B. A. (2018). Reframing Rigor: A Modern Look at Challenge

and Support in Higher Education. New Directions for Higher Education, 2018(181), 11–23.

https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20267

Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding In-depth

Semistructured Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and

Agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475

Cantalupo, N. C., & Kidder, W. C. (2018). A Systematic Look at a Serial Problem: Sexual

Harassment of Students by University Faculty. Utah Law Review, 2018(3), 671–786.

Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chinall, S., & Townsend, R. (2020). Report on the AAU Campus Climate

Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Association of American Universities

(AAU). https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-

Safety/Revised%20Aggregate%20report%20%20and%20appendices%201-7_(01-16-

2020_FINAL).pdf

Cantwell, B. (2015). Laboratory management, academic production, and the building blocks of

academic capitalism. Higher Education, 70(3), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-

014-9851-9

Caron, W. (2021, January 8). What is a Living Wage in Hawai’i in 2020? Raise Up Hawai’i.

https://www.raiseuphawaii.org/media/living-wage-standards-hawaii-2020

CAST. (2020). About Universal Design for Learning. http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-

udl.html#.X0l_z-hKiUl
 Page 292

Cech, E. (2021). Engineering’s Systemic Marginalization and Devaluation of Students and

Professionals With Disabilities. 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Confrence.

https://peer.asee.org/37080

Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2021). Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM.

Science Advances, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0933

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (n.d.). Understanding current causes of women’s

underrepresentation in science. PNAS, 108(8), 3157–3162.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). CDC: 1 in 4 US adults live with a disability. CDC

Newsroom. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0816-

disability.html#:~:text=One%20in%204%20U.S.%20adults,affects%201%20in%207%20a

dults.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) and

Diabetes. Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/pcos.html#:~:text=What%20is%20PCOS%3F,US%

20women%20of%20reproductive%20age.

Center for Teaching & Learning. (n.d.). Attendance Policies. University of Colorado Boulder.

Retrieved February 17, 2023, from https://www.colorado.edu/center/teaching-

learning/teaching-resources/attendance-policies

Cepeda, M. E. (2021). Thrice Unseen, Forever on Borrowed Time: Latina Feminist Reflections on

Mental Disability and the Neoliberal Academy. South Atlantic Quarterly, 120(2), 301–320.

https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-8916046
 Page 293

Charlton, J., & Davis, L. (2006). The Disability Studies Reader: Vol. null (2nd ed, Ed.).

Christensen, M., & Evans-Murray, A. (2021). Gaslighting in nursing academia: A new or

established covert form of bullying? 56(3), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12588

Cioè-Peña, M. (2020). Bilingualism for students with disabilities, deficit or advantage?:

Perspectives of Latinx mothers. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(3), 253–266.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2020.1799884

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly. (2000). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative

Research. Jossey-Bass.

Cohn, S. (2021, July 15). These are America’s 10 most expensive states to live in. CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/15/these-are-americas-most-expensive-states-to-live-

in.html

Colombo, B. (2020). Graduate students work more hours than they are paid for, receive no

benefits. North Texas Daily. https://www.ntdaily.com/graduate-students-work-more-

hours-than-they-are-paid-for-receive-no-benefits/

Columbia University. (n.d.). Inclusive Teaching: Supporting All Students in the College Classroom.

https://www.edx.org/course/inclusive-teaching-supporting-all-students-in-the

Commission on Langage Learning. (2017). America’s Languages: Investing in Language Education

for the 21st Century (pp. 1–49). American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

https://www.amacad.org/publication/americas-languages

Connor, D. J., Ferri, B., & Annamma, S. A. (Eds.). (2016). DisCrit Disability Studies and Critical Race

Theory in Education (1st ed.). Teachers College Press.

 Page 294

Connor, D. J., Gabel, S. L., Gallagher, D. J., & Morton, M. (2008). Disability studies and inclusive

education—Implications for theory, research, and practice. International Journal of

Inclusive Education, 12(5–6), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802377482

Council of Europe. (2022). Disability and Disabilism. COMPASS Manual for Human Rights

Education with Young People. https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/disability-and-

disablism

Council of Graduate Schools. (n.d.). Degree Completion. Best Practices. Retrieved February 1,

2022, from https://cgsnet.org/degree-completion

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique

of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of

Chicago Legal Forum, 138–167.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence

against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing from amount five

approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Cross, K., Hughes, B., & Farrell, S. (2022). A call to make Queer erasure, violence, and battle

fatigue in STEM visible. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003169253

Davis, B. (n.d.). 20 Grad School Scholarships for Students with Disabilities. GoGrad Your Guide to

Online Gradaute Programs. Retrieved March 10, 2023, from

https://www.gograd.org/resources/grad-school-scholarships-students-with-disabilities/

Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body: Vol. null (null, Ed.).
 Page 295

Dean, D. G. (1961). Alienation: Its Meaning and Measurement. American Sociological Review,

26(5), 753–758. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2090204

Debrand, C. C., & Salzberg, C. L. (2005). A Validated Curriculum to Provide Training to Faculty

regarding Students with Disabilities in Higher Education. Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, 18(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/EJ846380

Dencer-Brown, A. (2022). Am I Too Old for a Graduate Degree? Returning to School Later in Life.

Crimson. https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blog/graduate-prep/graduate-blog-am-

i-too-old-for-a-graduate-

degree/#:~:text=In%20the%20US%2C%20the%20average,a%20look%20at%20some%20

factors.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological Methods. McGraw-Hill.

Depressive Disorders. (2022). In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Vol. 1–

0). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.x04_Depressive_Disorders

Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan

Press. doi:10.1353/book.57058

Downey, G. (2008). The Engineering Cultures Syllabus as Formation Narrative: Critical

Participation in Engineering Education through Problem Definition. 5(2), 428–456.

Downey, G. L., & Lucena, J. C. (2018). Engineering Selves: Hiring In to a Contested Field of

Education. In N. Sakellariou & R. Milleron (Eds.), Ethics, Politics, and Whistleblowing in

Engineering (1st ed., p. 19). CRC Press. https://doi-

org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/10.1201/9781351242417
 Page 296

DuBois, W. E. B. (1920). Race intelligence. The Crisis, 20(3).

Dudley-Marking, C., & Baker, D. (2012). The Effects of Market-based School Reforms on Students

with Disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(2).

Echave, P., & Gonzalez, D. (2022). Being an Immigrant with Disabilities: Characteristics of a

population facing multiple structural challenges (Immagrants and Immigration, pp. 1–23).

The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/being-immigrant-

disabilities

Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific

Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental

Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223

Elis for Rachel, INC., Alicia Abramson and Hannah Neves v. Yale University and The President and

Fellows of Yale University, 3:22-cv-01517 (United States District Cout District of

Conneticut November 30, 2022). http://www.bazelon.org/wp-

content/uploads/2022/11/Elis-for-Rachael-Inc.-et.-al-v.-Yale-Case.pdf

Erevelles, N. (2002). Voices of Silence: Foucault, Disability, and the Question of Self-

determination. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(1), 17–35.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014473121819

Erevelles, N. (2005). Understanding curriculum as normalizing text: Disability studies meet

curriculum theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 421–439.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276970

Erevelles, N. (2012). Disability and Difference in Global Contexts: Towards a Transformative Body

Politic: Vol. null (null, Ed.).

 Page 297

Erevelles, N. (2013). (Im)Material Citizens: Cognitive Disability, Race, and the Politics of

Citizenship. In M. Wappett & K. Arndt (Eds.), Foundations of Disability Studies (pp. 145–

176). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137363787_8

Faraone, S. V., Sergeant, J., Gillberg, C., & Biederman, J. (2003). The worldwide prevalence of

ADHD: is it an American condition? World Psychiatry : Official Journal of the World

Psychiatric Association (WPA), 2(2), 104–113.

Farrar, V. (2006). Equal to the task: Disability issues in postgraduate research study. In M. Adams

& S. Brown (Eds.), Towards Inclusive Learning in Higher Education (1st ed., pp. 176–186).

Routledge. 10.4324/9780203088623

Flemming, S., Johnston, C., & MacAulay Thompson, S. (2018). BECOMING AWARE OF

ENGINEERING CULTURE: TOWARD SCULPTING A MORE HUMAN ENGINEER. Proceedings

of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA).

https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13018

Flynn, N. (2017, February 7). Higher Education Lawsuits: Disability Discrimination Spotlight.

Cielo24. https://cielo24.com/2017/02/higher-education-lawsuits-disability-

discrimination/

Foster, D., & Wass, V. (2013). Disability in the Labour Market: An Exploration of Concepts of the

Ideal Worker and Organisational Fit that Disadvantage Employees with Impairments.

Sociology, 47(4), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512454245

Fovet, F. (2021). Chapter 9: Using universal design for learning as a lens to rethink graduate

education pedagogical practices. In T. S. Jenkins (Ed.), Reshaping Graduate Education

Through Innovation and Experiential Learning. IGI Global.

 Page 298

Fox, A. (2020). Women Advising Women: Socializing Doctoral Students Into a Culture of Sacrifice.

Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 13(2), 211–229.

https://doi.org/10.1080/26379112.2020.1782232

Frankenberg, R. (1993). The social construction of Whiteness: White women, race matters.

University of Minnesota Press.

Ganti, T. (2014). Neoliberalism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 43(1), 89–104.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155528

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological

issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher

Education, 9(1), 1–8.

Ghai, A. (2002). Disabled Women: An Excluded Agenda of Indian Feminism. Hypatia, 17(3), 49–

66. JSTOR.

Gillis, A. (2015). The rise of Mad Studies. A new academic discipline challenges our ideas of what

it means to be “sane.” University Affairs/Affaires Universitaires.

https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/mad-studies/

Gin, L. E., Guerrero, F. A., Cooper, K. M., & Brownell, S. E. (2020). Is Active Learning Accessible?

Exploring the Process of Providing Accommodations to Students with Disabilities. CBE—

Life Sciences Education, 19(4), es12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-03-0049

Glaudell, R. (2021). The Legacy of William Shockley: Racism and Ableism in STEM. 2021 IEEE 48th

Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), 1887–1889.

https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC43889.2021.9518411
 Page 299

Glesne, C. (1997). That Rare Feeling: Re-presenting Research Through Poetic Transcription.

Qualitative Inquiry, 3(2), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300204

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Touchstone.

Goggin, G. (2008). Innovation and disability. M/C Journal, 11(3). http://dev.mediaculture.

ci.qut.edu.au/ojs/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/56

Goodley, D. (2011). Disability’ studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. SAGE Publications.

Goodley, D. (2013). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 28(5), 631–644.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.717884

Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/Ability Studies: Theorizing disablism and ableism (1st ed.). Routledge.

Goodley, D. (2016). Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction: Vol. null (2nd ed, Ed.).

Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Liddiard, K., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2019). Provocations for Critical

Disability Studies. Disability & Society, 34(6), 972–997.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1566889

Gordon, M., & Keiser, S. (2000). Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA): A no-nonsense guide for clinicians, educators, administrators, and

lawyers. GSI Publications/Guilford Press.

Gordon, S. (2022). What is gaslighting? Signs of Gaslighting and Waht to Do. Verywellmind.

https://www.verywellmind.com/is-someone-gaslighting-you-4147470#citation-8

Grand, S. (2015). Better Red than Dead: Toward a Nation-Peoples and a Peoples Nation. In S.

Grand (Ed.), Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought. Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers.

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucb/detail.action?docID=4086654
 Page 300

Grande, S. (2015). Competing Moral Visions: At the Crossroads of Democracy and Sovereignty. In

Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought (10th ed., pp. 49–92).

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucb/detail.action?docID=4086654

Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at

Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. National Center

for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

https://www.thetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ntds_full.pdf

Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Ensher, E. A. (2000). Effects of peer mentoring on types of mentor support,

program satisfaction and graduate student stress. Journal of College Student

Development, 41(6), 637–642.

Grech, S. (2009). Disability, poverty and development: Critical reflections on the majority world

debate. Disability & Society, 24(6), 771–784.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590903160266

Grech, S. (2015). Disability and Poverty in the Global South: Renegotiating Development in

Guatemala: Vol. null (null, Ed.).

Grimes, S. (2020). Student Suggestions for Improving Learning at University for Those with

Learning Challenges/Disability. In G. Crimmins (Ed.), Strategies for Supporting Inclusion

and Diversity in the Academy: Higher Education, Aspiration and Inequality (pp. 329–352).

Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43593-6_17

Grimes, S., Scevak, J., Southgate, E., & Buchanan, R. (2017). Non-disclosing students with

disabilities or learning challenges: Characteristics and size of a hidden population. The

 Page 301

Australian Educational Researcher, 44(4), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-017-

0242-y

Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., & Buchanan, R. (2020). University student experience of

disability and the influence of stigma on institutional non-disclosure and learning. Journal

of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(1), 23–37.

Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic

saturation in qualitative research. Plos One, 15(5), e0232076.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076

Hagedorn, L. S., Chi, W. (YanFang), Cepeda, R. M., & McLain, M. (2007). AN INVESTIGATION OF

CRITICAL MASS: The Role of Latino Representation in the Success of Urban Community

College Students. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 73–91.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9024-5

Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? (No.

ED215628; Project on the Status and Education of Women., p. 24). Association of

American Colleges. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED215628

Harpalani, V. (2017). ‘Safe Spaces’ and the Educational Benefits of Diversity. 13 Duke Journal of

Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 117. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2942980

Harrell, E. (2021). Crime Against Persons with Disabilities, 2009–2019 – Statistical Tables (NCJ

301367). U.S. Department of Justice.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/capd0919st.pdf

Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001
 Page 302

Harvey, L. (2015). Beyond member-checking: A dialogic approach to the research interview.

International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(1), 23–38.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2014.914487

Hascher, T., & Hagenauer, G. (2010). Alienation from school. International Journal of Educational

Research, 49(6), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.03.002

Hernández-Saca, D. I., Gutmann Kahn, L., & Cannon, M. A. (2018). Intersectionality Dis/ability

Research: How Dis/ability Research in Education Engages Intersectionality to Uncover the

Multidimensional Construction of Dis/abled Experiences. Review of Research in

Education, 42(1), 286–311.

Hill Collins, P. (2019). Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Duke University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478007098

Hillman, A., & Quinn, G. (2021). Justice for all Q&A: A Different Approach to Disability. Open

Society Foundations Voices. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/q-and-a-a-

different-approach-to-

disability?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_080621&utm

_content=

Hinz, S. E., Arbeit, C. A., & Bentz, A. (2017). Table 11 in Characteristics and Outcomes of

Undergraduates With Disabilities (NCES 2018-432; Web Tables, pp. 1–63). U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018432.pdf
 Page 303

Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: A synthesis of research.

York: Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-

hub/inclusive-learning-and-teaching-higher-education-synthesis-research

Hockings, C., Cooke, S., & Bowl, M. (2008). Learning and teaching for social diversity and

difference in higher education (RES-139-25-0222; ESRC End of Award Report). Economic

and Social Research Council. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-850016

Hosking, D. L. (2008). Critical Disability Theory. 4th Biennial Disability Studies Conference,

Lancaster University, UK.

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/disabilityconference_archive/2008/papers/ho

sking2008.pdf

Hursh, D. (2008). Beyond the Justice of the Market: Combating Neoliberal Educational Discourse

and Promoting Deliberative Democracy and Economic Equality. In W. Ayers, T. M. Quinn,

& D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (1st ed., pp. 152–164).

Routledge. https://doi-org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9780203887745

Hutcheon, E. J., & Wolbring, G. (2012). Voices of “disabled” post secondary students: Examining

higher education “disability” policy using an ableism lens. Journal of Diversity in Higher

Education, 5(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027002

IGI Global. (2022). What is Chilly Climate. IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge.

https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/chilly-climate/41538

Imada, A. L. (2017). A Decolonial Disability Studies? Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(3).

https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5984
 Page 304

Industrial Equipment News. (2016). Suicide By Job: Engineers, Factory Workers Among Top 5.

Safety. https://www.ien.com/safety/news/20827070/suicide-by-job-engineers-among-

top-5

Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (n.d.). Use the Data: Access IPEDS data submitted to NCES

through our data tools or download the data to conduct your research. IPEDS Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System. Retrieved February 18, 2022, from

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data

Interagency Working Group on Inclusion in STEM Federal Coordination in STEM Education

Subcommittee on STEM education. (2021). Best Practices for Diversity and Inclusion in

STEM Education and Research: A Guide by and for Federal Agencies (No. 091621).

National Science and Technology Council. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-

content/uploads/2021/09/091621-Best-Practices-for-Diversity-Inclusion-in-STEM.pdf

Jacklin, A. (2011). To be or not to be ‘a disabled student’ in higher education: The case of a

postgraduate ‘non-declaring’ (disabled) student. Journal of Research in Special

Educational Needs, 11(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01157.x

Jahan, S., & Saber Mahmud, A. (2017). What is Capitalism? In International Monetary Fund, Back

to Basics Economic Concepts Explained (pp. 2–3). International Monetary Fund.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/pdf/Economic-concepts-

explained.pdf

James, W., Bustamante, C., Lamons, K., & Chini, J. (2018). Beyond Disability as Weakness:

Perspectives from Students with Disabilities. Physics Education Research Conference

2018, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2018.pr.James

 Page 305

Jarrett, K., & Light, R. (2019). The experience of teaching using a game based approach: Teachers

as learners, collaborators and catalysts. European Physical Education Review, 25(2), 565–

580.

Jaschik, S. (2021, August 25). Broadening the Right to Sue Federal appeals court says blind

students have broad right to sue Los Angeles Community College District. Inside Higher

Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/08/25/court-ruling-makes-it-easier-

win-disability-discrimination-cases

Judy Jackson. (2004). The Story Is Not in the Numbers: Academic Socialization and Diversifying

the Faculty. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 172–185. JSTOR.

Kamperman, S. (2020). Academic Ableism and Students with Intellectual/Development

Disabilities Rethinking Self-Advocacy as an Anti-Ableist Practice. Critical Education,

11(17). https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v11i17.186501

Karpicz, J. R. (2020). “Just My Being Here is Self-Advocacy”: Exploring the Self-Advocacy

Experiences of Disabled Graduate Students of Color. JCSCORE, 6(1), 137–163.

Kartch, F. (2023). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (By pages 1073-

1075; Vol. 1–4). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411

Katrinli, S., Oliveira, N. C. S., Felger, J. C., Michopoulos, V., & Smith, A. K. (2022). The role of the

immune system in posttraumatic stress disorder. Translational Psychiatry, 12(1), 313.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-02094-7

Kearl, H. (2018). The Facts behind the #metoo Movement A National Study on Sexual Harrassment

and Assult. Stop Street Harassment. https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/2021-

04/full-report-2018-national-study-on-sexual-harassment-and-assault.pdf
 Page 306

Kellam, N., Sweeney, K., & Walther, J. (2015). Narrative Analysis in Engineering Education

Research: Exploring Ways of Constructing Narratives to Have Resonance with the Reader

and Critical Research Implications. 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle,

Washington. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24521

Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. Bodley Head.

Kerschbaum, S. L., EIisenman, L. T., & Jones, J. M. (2017). Introduction: In S. L. Kerschbaum, L. T.

Eisenman, & J. M. Jones (Eds.), Negotiating Disability (pp. 1–12). University of Michigan

Press; JSTOR.

http://www.jstor.org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.9426902.4

Khan, A. (2021). Improving STEM Graduate Students’ Mental Health and Wellbeing. The

Organizational Improvement Plan at Western University, 192.

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/oip/192

Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2007). “Democracy to come”: A personal narrative of pedagogical practices

and “Othering” within a context of higher education and research training. Teaching in

Higher Education, 12(5–6), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701596331

Kossek, E. E., Perrigino, M., & Rock, A. G. (2021). From ideal workers to ideal work for all: A 50-

year review integrating careers and work-family research with a future research agenda.

50th Anniversary Issue, 126, 103504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103504

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). SAGE

Publications.

Kroeger, T., McNicholas, C., von Wilpert, M., & Wolfe, J. (2018). The state of graduate student

employee unions Momentum to organize among graduate student workers is growing

 Page 307

despite opposition. https://www.epi.org/publication/graduate-student-employee-

unions/

Kumari Campbell, F. A. (2008a). Exploring internalized ableism using critical race theory. Disability

& Society, 23(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590701841190

Kumari Campbell, F. A. (2008b). Refusing Able(ness): A Preliminary Conversation about Ableism.

M/C Journal, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.46

Kumari Campbell, F. A. (2009). Contours of ableism: Territories, objects, disability’ and desire.

Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi-org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/10.1057/9780230245181

Kundu, S. C. (2003). Workforce diversity status: A study of employees’ reactions. Industrial

Management & Data Systems, 103(4), 215–226.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570310470610

Lamb, R., Hoston, D., Lin (林静), J., & Firestone, J. (2022). Psychological Allostatic Load: The Cost

of Persistence in STEM Disciplines. Research in Science Education, 52(4), 1187–1206.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10000-2

Laszlo Mizrahi, J., Jeffers, J., Ellis, Jr., E. B., & Pauli, P. (2016). Disability and Criminal Justice

Reform: Keys to Success (pp. i–36). RespectAbility USA.

https://www.respectability.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Disability-and-Criminal-

Justice-Reform-White-Paper.pdf

Lee, A. M. I. (2014). The 13 disability categories under IDEA. Understood.Org.

https://www.understood.org/articles/en/conditions-covered-under-idea
 Page 308

LeFrançois, B. A., Menzies, R., & Reaume, G. (2013). Mad Matters A critical reader in canadian

mad studies. Canadial Scholars’ Press Inc. https://www.canadianscholars.ca/books/mad-

matters

Leonardi, P. M. (2003). The Mythos of Engineering Culture: A Study of Communicative

Performances and Interaction.

Lett, E., & Everhart, A. (2022). Considerations for transgender population health research based

on US national surveys. Annals of Epidemiology, 65, 65–71.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.10.009

Lewin, T. (2007). Laws Limit Options When a Student is Menataly Ill. New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us/19protocol.html

Liasidou, A. (2014). Critical Disability Studies and Socialy Just Change in Higher Education. British

Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 120.

Lichtenstein, G., Chen, H. L., Smith, K. A., & Maldonado, T. A. (2014). Retention and Persistence

of Women and Minorities Along the Engineering Pathway in the United States. In A. Johri

& B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 311–

334). Cambridge University Press; Cambridge Core.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.021

Lillywhite, A., & Wolbring, G. (2019). Undergraduate Disabled Students as Knowledge Producers

including Researchers: A Missed Topic in Academic Literature. Education Sciences, 9(4),

259. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040259
 Page 309

Lizotte, M., & Clifford Simplican, S. (2017). Doctoral Students With Disabilities: Challenges In

Graduate Programs And Research Methodology. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary

and Tertiary Education, 2, 181–193. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.28945/3900

Lofland, J., Snow, D. A., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. (2006). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to

Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Cengage Learning.

Lorde, A. G. (1984). Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press; Black Thought and

Culture database.

https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic_d

etails%7C4401746

Lyons, S. R. (2000). Rhetorical Sovereignty: What Do American Indians Want from Writing?

College Composition and Communication, 51(3), 447–468. JSTOR.

https://doi.org/10.2307/358744

Magnus, E., & Tøssebro, J. (n.d.). Negotiating individual accommodation in higher education.

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 16(4), 316–332.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2012.761156

Marks, D. (1997). Models of disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19(3), 85–91.

https://doi.org/10.3109/09638289709166831

Marks, D. (1999). Dimensions of Oppression: Theorising the embodied subject. Disability &

Society, 14(5), 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599925975

Marshall, D., & Case, J. (2010). Rethinking ‘disadvantage’ in higher education: A paradigmatic

case study using narrative analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 491–504.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903518386
 Page 310

Martin, J. (2015). The Invisible Hand of Social Capital: Narratives of First Generation College

Students in Engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31.

Marx, K. (1867). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1). Penguin.

Mayo Clinic staff. (2022). Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Diseases-Conditions.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pcos/symptoms-causes/syc-20353439

McBride-Wright, M. (2022). Masculinity in Engineering: Perceptions in engineering culture (pp.

1–116). EqualEngineers. https://equalengineers.com/masculinity-in-engineering-report/

McCormick, M. (2021). Teachers Need Therapy. Their Schools Should Pay for It. A radical—And

effective—Approach to student mental health. EducationWeek.

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-teachers-need-therapy-their-

schools-should-pay-for-it/2021/10

McGee, E. O. (2020). Interrogating Structural Racism in STEM Higher Education. Educational

Researcher, 49(9), 633–644. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20972718

McGinty, J. (2016). Accessibility and Inclusion in Higher Education: An Inquiry of Faculty

Perceptions and Experiences [Dissertation]. Colorado State Univerity.

McIlwee, J. S., & Robinson, G. J. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace

culture. State University of New York Press.

https://colorado.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct

=true&AuthType=ip,url,cookie,uid&db=nlebk&AN=8013&site=ehost-

live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_COVER

Mckenzie, J. (2010). Constructing the intellectually disabled person as a subject of education: A

discourse analysis using Q-methodology.

 Page 311

McRuer, R. (1998). Reading and writing ‘immunity’: Children and the anti-body. Children’s

Literature Association Quarterly, 23(3), 134–142. https://doi.org/doi:10.1353/chq.0.1168

McRuer, R. (2006). Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York University

Press.

MedCircle. (2021). Safe Spaces Vs. Brave Spaces. MedCircle. https://medcircle.com/articles/safe-

spaces-vs-brave-spaces/

Medical News Today. (2019). What to know about ADHD and hyperfocus. Medical News Today.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325681#summary

Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies?

Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47–75.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2009.11910861

Meekosha, H., Shuttleworth, R., & Soldatic, K. (2013). Disability and Critical Sociology: Expanding

the Boundaries of Critical Social Inquiry. Critical Sociology, 39, 1–5.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920512471220

Meeks, L. M., Taylor, N., Case, B., Stergiopoulos, E., Zazove, P., Graves, L., McKee, M., Swenor, B.

K., Salgat, A., Cerilli, C., Joshi, H., & Moreland, C. J. (2020). The Unexamined Diversity:

Disability Policies and Practices in US Graduate Medical Education Programs. Journal of

Graduate Medical Education, 12(5), 615–619. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-19-

00940.1

Mendez, S. (2022). Sacrifice: Messages STEM Postdoctoral Scholar Women Receive about Career

and Family. 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN.

https://peer.asee.org/41315
 Page 312

Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic Capitalism and Doctoral Student Socialization: A Case Study. The

Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96. JSTOR.

Menzies, R., LeFrançois, B., & Reaume, G. (2013). Introducing mad studies. In B. LeFrançois & R.

Menzies (Eds.), Mad matters: A critical reader in Canadian mad studies (pp. 1–22).

Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

https://www.academia.edu/3819953/Introducing_Mad_Studies

Michalko, R. (1999). The Two-in-One: Walking with Smokie, Walking with Blindness. Temple

University Press.

Miller, R., & Downey, M. (2019). Examining the STEM Climate for Queer Students with Disabilities.

Mingus, M. (Director). (2011, August). Femmes of Color 2011, Keynote by Mia Mingus [Keynote

Address]. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/movingtoward- the-ugly-

a-politic-beyond-desirability/

Mingus, M. (2017). Forced Intimacy: An Ableist Norm. Leaving Evidence.

https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/forced-intimacy-an-ableist-norm/

Minow, M. (1990). Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law. Cornell

University Press.

Mintz, S. B. (2002). Invisible Disability: Georgina Kleege’s “Sight Unseen.” NWSA Journal, 14(3),

155–177.

Mireles, D. (2020). Dis/rupting and Dis/mantling Racism and Ableism in Higher Education.

University of California Riverside.

Mitchell, R. (2014). Racial Battle Fatigue in Higher Education: Exposing the Myth of Post-Racial

America.
 Page 313

M.M. v. Stockton University, A-1260-20 (Superior Court of New Jersey February 25, 2022).

https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/399/75543/a1260-20.pdf

Moore, K., Johnson, N. R., Sánchez, F., & Hargrove, W. R. (2021). The Politics of Citation Practices

in Engineering Education: A Citation Analysis of Intersectionality. 20.

https://peer.asee.org/37883

Morgan, R. E. (2022). Criminal Victimization, 2020 – Supplemental Statistical Tables (NCJ 303936).

U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv20sst.pdf

Morton, T. R., & Parsons, E. C. (2018). #BlackGirlMagic: The identity conceptualization of Black

women in undergraduate STEM education. Science Education, 102(6), 1363–1393.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21477

Moss, S. (2018). Research is set up for bullies to thrive. World View.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06040-w

Moss, S., & Mahmoudi, M. (2021). STEM the bullying: An empirical investigation of abusive

supervision in academic science. The Lancet, 40(101121).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101121

Mraovic, J. (2021). The perception of time in different cultures. Clockify.

https://clockify.me/blog/managing-time/time-perception/#Polychronic_approach

Murphy-Oikonen, J., McQueen, K., Miller, A., Chambers, L., & Hiebert, A. (2022). Unfounded

Sexual Assault: Women’s Experiences of Not Being Believed by the Police. Interpers

Violence, 37(11–12). https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520978190

Musambira, G., Collins, S., Brown, T., & Voss, K. (2012). From “Publish or Perish” to “Grant or

Perish”: Examining Grantsmanship in Communication and the Pressures on

 Page 314

Communication Faculty to Procure External Funding for Research. Journalism & Mass

Communication Educator, 67(3), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695812454109

Musto, M. (2010). Revisiting Marx’s Concept of Alienation. Socialism and Democracy, 24(3), 79–

101. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2010.544075

Musto, M. (2021). Karl Marx’s Writings on Alienation (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60781-4

NACADA. (n.d.). Motivational Interviewing: Helping Advisors Initiate Change in Student

Behaviors. NACADA the Global Community for Academic Advising. Retrieved March 10,

2023, from https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/NACADA-Companion-

Resources/Academic-Advising-Approaches/Motivational-Interviewing.aspx

National, A. O. S. E. A., National, A. O. E., Policy, A. G. A., Board, O. H. E. A. W., Division, O. B. A.

S. S., Board, O. S. E., & Committee, O. B. A. O. I. (2016). Barriers and opportunities for 2-

year and 4-year stem degrees: Systemic change to support students’ diverse pathways (1st

ed.). National Academies Press.

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucb/detail.action?docID=4558355

National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Graduate STEM Education for

the 21st Century. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25038

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Sexual Harassment of

Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine (p. 312). The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994

 Page 315

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2021). Women, Minorities, and Persons

with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2021 (Special Report NSF 21-321). National

Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd

National Education Association. (2022). Implicit Bias, Microaggressions, and Stereotypes

Resources. Resource Library. https://www.nea.org/resource-library/implicit-bias-

microaggressions-and-stereotypes-resources

National Educational Association of Disabled Students. (2019). Comparison of Specific

Populations of Graduate Students with Disabilities Using 2016 CGPSS Data.

https://www.neads.ca/en/about/media/CombinedReport_Nov28.pdf

National Science Foundation. (2022a). Research doctorate recipients’ primary source of financial

support, by broad field of doctorate, sex, citizenship status, ethnicity, and race: 2021

(Table 4-1; 2021 Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities). Survey of Earned

Doctorates. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23300/data-tables

National Science Foundation. (2022b). Survey of Earned Doctorates.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/#qs

Nelson, S. (2022). What is Outing and Why is it Harmful? LGBTQ and ALL.

https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-is-outing-and-why-is-it-harmful/

Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Wei, X. (2011). The

Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults With Disabilities up to 8 Years After High

School (National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)). U.S. Department of Education.

https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf
 Page 316

Niedringhaus, C. (2018). University of Colorado faculty, staff look to reduce practice of students

seeking doctor’s notes. Boulder Daily Camera.

https://www.dailycamera.com/2018/09/12/university-of-colorado-faculty-staff-look-to-

reduce-practice-of-students-seeking-doctors-notes/

Ockenfels, H. (2014). Motivational Interviewing as an Advising Tool. Academic Advising

Association Conference, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

https://aaa.unl.edu/2014Conference/BreakoutSessionHandouts/Motivational%20Interv

iewing%20handout%20for%20AAA%20presentation.pdf

O’Connor, P., Carvalho, T., Vabø, A., & Cardoso, S. (2015). Gender in Higher Education: A Critical

Review. In J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. D. Dill, & M. Souto-Otero (Eds.), The Palgrave

International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. Palgrave Macmillian.

https://doi-org.colorado.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/978-1-137-45617-5_30

Olegtree Deakins. (2010, May 20). Side Effects of Medication May Constitute a Disability Under

the ADA. Olegtree Deakins Employment Law. https://ogletree.com/insights/side-effects-

of-medication-may-constitute-a-disability-under-the-ada/

Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement (1st ed.). Macmillan Publishers Limited.

10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1

Oliver, M. (2004). If I had a hammer: The social model in action. In C. Barnes (Ed.), The social

model of dis/ability—Theory and research (pp. 18–31). The Disability Press.

Olkin, R. (2002). Could you hold the door for me? Including disability in diversity. Culture Divers

Ethnic Minor Psychol, 8(2), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.8.2.130

 Page 317

Olsen, J., Griffiths, M., Soorenian, A., & Porter, R. (2020). Reporting from the Margins: Disabled

Academics Reflections on Higher Education. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research,

22(1), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.670

Oluo, I. (2019). So you want to talk about race. Seal Press.

Overboe, J. (2007). Disability and Genetics: Affirming the Bare Life (the State of Exception)*.

Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 44(2), 219–235.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2007.tb01135.x

Palfrey, J. (2017). Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces. The MIT Press; JSTOR.

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1vz4994

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillian, R., & Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial conversations. McGraw-Hill

Contemporary.

Pearson, H., & Dickens, B. (2021). (Re)framing qualitative research as a prickly artichoke: Peeling

back the layers of structural ableism within the institutional research process. In J. N.

Lester & E. A. Nusbaum (Eds.), Centering Diverse Bodies in Critical Qualitative Inquiry (1st

ed.). Routledge.

Peterson, R. J. (2021). We need to address ableism in science. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 32(7),

507–510. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E20-09-0616

Petesch, P., & Chichester Jr., M. (2012, September 11). Federal Appellate Court Holds that

Requiring an Employee to Undergo Psychological Counseling May Constitute Requiring a

Medical Examination Under the ADA. Littler Insight. https://www.littler.com/federal-

appellate-court-holds-requiring-employee-undergo-psychological-counseling-may-

constitute
 Page 318

Pountney, I. (2019). Doctor’s note requirement is excessively burdensome for today’s South

students. The Southerner. https://www.shsoutherner.net/opinion/2019/02/27/doctor-

note-requirement-is-excessively-burdensome-for-todays-south-students/

Powers, K. P. (2021). Graduate Student Graduation and Completion Rates Long Overdue.

Institutes for Effectiveness in Higher Education.

https://instituteforeffectiveness.org/graduate-student-graduation-and-completion-

rates/

Poynter, K. J., & Tubbs, N. J. (2008). Safe Zones. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(1), 121–132.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J524v05n01_10

Price, M. (2015). The Bodymind Problem and the Possibilities of Pain. Hypatia, 30(1), 268–284.

https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12127

Puar, J. K. (2017). The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability: Vol. null (null, Ed.).

Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P. C. (2010, May 14). Side Effects of Medication Can

Constitute a Disability under the ADA. New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog.

https://www.njemploymentlawfirmblog.com/side-effects-of-medication-can/

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 111–148, 111th Congress, 2nd Session, 2010, 124

124 Stat. 119 124 Stat. 253 (2010).

https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ148/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

Rasamny, M. (2022). “A Clear Violation of the Law”: Professors Reject Student Disability

Accommodations. The Hoya. https://thehoya.com/a-clear-violation-of-the-law-

professors-reject-student-disability-accommodations/
 Page 319

Rastogi, P. N. (1986). The Culture of Productivity. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 22(2),

148–167. JSTOR.

Reinholz, D. L., & Ridgway, S. W. (2021). Access Needs: Centering Students and Disrupting Ableist

Norms in STEM. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(3), es8.

https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-01-0017

re.Max. (2022). I’m a UC graduate student. Here’s What the Strike is About. Hint: It’s not about a

low hourly rate. Medium. https://medium.com/@re.Marx/im-a-uc-graduate-student-

here-s-what-the-strike-is-about-4ad250900c9a

Rigler Jr, K. L., Bowlin, L. K., Sweat, K., Watts, S., & Thorne, R. (2017). Agency, Socialization, and

Support: A Critical Review of Doctoral Student Attrition. the 3rd International Conference

on Doctoral Education.

Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal Design for Instruction in

Postsecondary Education: A Systematic Review of Empirically Based Articles. Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 5–15.

Romney, L. (2020). A Legacy Of Mistreatment For San Francisco’s Black Special Ed Students. KALW

Public Media. https://www.kalw.org/podcast/crosscurrents-podcast/2020-08-10/a-

legacy-of-mistreatment-for-san-franciscos-black-special-ed-students

Rose, M. (2010). Accommodating Graduate Students with Disabilities. Council of Ontario

Universities. http://www.cags.ca/documents/highlites/AC-Working-Paper---

Accommodating-Graduate-Students-with-Disabilities---May-2010-1.pdf

Rosen, D., Branstetter, H., Goblin, R., & Kanter, J. (2020, June 25). Innovations in Decreasing

Microaggressions from Psychological Science. National Confrence on Race and Ethnicity.

 Page 320

Rothstein, L. A. (2018). Primer on Disability Discrimination in Higher Education. Laws, 7(3), 25.

https://doi.org/10.3390/laws7030025

Rovai, A. P., & Wighting, M. J. (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher

education students in a virtual classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 97–

110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.03.001

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. SAGE Publications.

Rush, F. (2004). Conceptual foundations of early Critical Theory. In F. L. Rush (Ed.), The Cambridge

Companion to Critical Theory (pp. 6--39). Cambridge University Press.

Rybarczyk, B. J., Lerea, L., Whittington, D., & Dykstra, L. (2016). Analysis of Postdoctoral Training

Outcomes That Broaden Participation in Science Careers. CBE—Life Sciences Education,

15(3), ar33. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0032

Sable, M. R., Danis, F., Mauzy, D. L., & Gallagher, S. K. (2006). Barriers to Reporting Sexual Assault

for Women and Men: Perspectives of College Students. Journal of American College

Health, 55(3), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.55.3.157-162

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Sanchez-Pena, M. L., Ramirez, N., Xu, X. R., & Samuel, D. B. (2021). Work in Progress: Measuring

Stigma of Mental Health Conditions and Its Impact in Help-seeking Behaviors Among

Engineering Students. 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference. https://peer.asee.org/38181

Sanders, S., Thomas, R., Glasziou, P., & Doust, J. (2019). A review of changes to the attention

deficit/hyperactivity disorder age of onset criterion using the checklist for modifying

disease definitions. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), 357. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-

2337-7
 Page 321

Sayers, R. C. (2012). The Cost of Being Female: Critical Comment on Block. Journal of Business

Ethics, 106(4), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1017-4

Schraedley, M. K., Jenkins, J. J., Irelan, M., & Umana, M. (2021). The Neoliberalization of Higher

Education: Paradoxing Students’ Basic Needs at a Hispanic-Serving Institution. Frontiers

in Sustainable Food Systems, 5.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.689499

Senior Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer. (2014). Student Hourly Employee work Hours.

University of Colorado Boulder Campu Policies.

https://www.colorado.edu/policies/student-hourly-employee-work-hours

Seymour, E., & Hunter, A.-B. (Eds.). (2019). Talking about Leaving Revisited: Persistence,

Relocation, and Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education (1st ed.). Springer. 10.1007/978-

3-030-25304-2

Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability: Rights and wrongs. Routledge.

Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited: Vol. null (null, Ed.).

Sherwood, K. L., & Kattari, S. K. (2021). Reducing Ableism in Social Work Education Through

Universal Design for Learning and Policy. Journal of Social Work Education.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1997686

Shildrick, M. (2009). Dangerous discourses of disability, subjectivity and sexuality. Palgrave

Macmillian.

Silverman, A. (2016). Disability Stigma and Your Patients [Factsheet]. (Aging Well with a Physical

Disability Factsheet Series.). University of Washington Healthy Aging & Physical Disability

RRTC. https://agerrtc.washington.edu//info/factsheets/stigma#
 Page 322

Sinclair, A. (2019). Is it bad to go to the same school for both undergrad and graduate school?

Quora. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-bad-to-go-to-the-same-school-for-both-undergrad-

and-graduate-school/answer/Alyssa-Sinclair-5

Sinozich, S., & Langton, L. (2014). Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age

Females, 1995–2013 (NCJ 248471). U.S. Department of Justice.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

Sins Invalid. (2019). Skin, Tooth, and Bone: The Basis of Movement is Our People (2nd ed.).

sinsinvalid.org

Slaton, A. E., & Pawley, A. L. (2018). The Power and Politics of Engineering Education Research

Design: Saving the ‘Small N.’ Engineering Studies, 10(2–3), 133–157.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2018.1550785

Smith, P. (2017). Defining Disability Studies and its Intersection with Madness. Disability Studies

Quarterly, 37(3). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5940

Smith, S. A., Woodhead, E., & Chin-Newman, C. (2019). Disclosing accommodation needs:

Exploring experiences of higher education students with disabilities. International Journal

of Inclusive Education, 25(12), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1610087

Smith-Johnson, M. (2022). Transgender Adults Have Higher Rates Of Disability Than Their

Cisgender Counterparts. Health Affairs, 41(10), 1470–1476.

https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00500

Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical Race Methodology: Counter-Storytelling as an

Analytical Framework for Education Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.

https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103
 Page 323

Soria, K. M., Horgos, B., Chirikov, I., & Jones-White, D. (2020). The experiences of undergraduate

students with physical, learning, neurodevelopmental, and cognitive disabilities during the

COVID-19 pandemic. https://hdl.handle.net/11299/216715

Sowell, R., Allum, J., & Okahana, H. (2015). Doctoral initiative on minority attrition and

completion. Council of Graduate Schools. https://legacy.cgsnet.org/publication-

pdf/3056/Doctoral_Initiative_on_Minority_Attrition_and_Completion-2015.pdf

Stewart, S., Lim, D. H., & Kim, J. (2015). Factors Influencing College Persistence for First-Time

Students. Journal of Developmental Education, 38(3), 12–20. JSTOR.

Stop Ableism. (2022). What is Ableism? Stop Ableism. http://www.stopableism.org/p/what-is-

ableism.html

Stubblefield, A. (2005). Ethics along the color line. Cornell University Press.

Student Employment. (n.d.). Working On-Campus. University of Colorado Boulder. Retrieved

February 17, 2023, from https://www.colorado.edu/studentemployment/find-

job/working-campus

Suárez-Orozco, C., Casanova, S., Martin, M., Katsiaficas, D., Cuellar, V., Smith, N. A., & Dias, S. I.

(2015). Toxic Rain in Class: Classroom Interpersonal Microaggressions. Educational

Researcher, 44(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15580314

Sudikoff, N. (2011). High College Suicide Rates Stem From Depression, Isolation: Study. HuffPost.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/high-college-suicide-rate_n_636878

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microagressions in everyday life: Race, Gender, and sexual orientation. Wiley.

Sutherland, A. (2021). ‘There is a huge crisis happening in STEM classes’ Mental health in STEM:

Getting to the root of the problem. The Daily.

 Page 324

https://www.dailyuw.com/special_sections/disability_inclusion/there-is-a-huge-crisis-

happening-in-stem-classes/article_fc535cb0-45ba-11ec-b66a-075424a21121.html

Swenor, B. K., Munoz, B., & Meeks, L. M. (2020). A decade of decline: Grant funding for

researchers with disabilities 2008 to 2018. PLoS ONE, 15(3), e0228686.

https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228686

Swuager, S. (2020, August 6). The Prison to School Pipeline of EdTech | Shea Swauger. Colorado

Learning and Teaching with Technology COLTT, Virtual Conference.

Syracuse University School of Education. (2019). Disability Studies at Syracuse University.

Syracuse University School of Education. https://soe.syr.edu/disability-studies/

Sztobryn-Giercuszkiewicz, J. (2017). Critical disability theory as a theoretical framework for

research on disability. In J. Niedbalski, M. Racław, & D. Żuchowska (Eds.), Oblicza

niepełnosprawności w praktyce i teorii (pp. 29–35). Uniwersytet Łódzki.

Tan, P. L. (2022). Handbook of College and University Teaching: A Global Perspective (By pages

424-439). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412996891

Terras, K., Leggio, J., & Phillips, A. (2015). Disability Accommodations in Online Courses: The

Graduate Student Experience. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(3),

329–340.

Thabet, A. A. M., Abed, Y., & Vostanis, P. (2004). Comorbidity of PTSD and depression among

refugee children during war conflict. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(3),

533–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00243.x
 Page 325

The Trustees of Indiana University. (2021a). Institution Lookup. The Carnegie Classification of

Institutions of Higher Education.

https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/lookup.php

The Trustees of Indiana University. (2021b). Introduction to queer theory. IU Bloomington

Libraries’ Philosophy Collection. https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/philosophyguide

Thomas, C. (2007). Sociologies of disability’, “impairment”, and chronic illness: Ideas in disability’

studies and medical sociology. Palgrave Macmillian.

Thoreson, N. J., & Ramirez, K. I. (2020, June 25). Speaking Up and Calling In: Skills to Interrupt and

Challenge White Supremacy and Racism with Love and Compassion. National Confrence

on Race and Ethnicity.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research.

Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis,

Communicating Impact. Blackwell LTD.

https://ucblibraries.skillport.com/skillportfe/main.action?assetid=RW$16699:_ss_book:

143097#summary/BOOKS/RW$16699:_ss_book:143097

Truman, J. L., & Morgan, R. E. (2022). Violent Victimization by Sexual Orientation and Gender

Identity, 2017–2020 (NCJ 304277). U.S. Department of Justice.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvsogi1720.pdf

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples: Vol. null

(null, Ed.).
 Page 326

Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of Color in Academe. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 74–

93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777131

UC Santa Barbara Resource Center for Sexual & Gender Diversity. (n.d.). Transmisogyny

Education. Education. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from

https://rcsgd.sa.ucsb.edu/education/transmisogyny

u/mookiexmac. (2014). Compared to the pain of child birth, how bad are ruptured ovarian cysts?

R/AskWomen.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/2m6w9x/compared_to_the_pain_of

_child_birth_how_bad_are/

UN Women. (2020). SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST WOMEN WITH DISABILITIES IN THE WORLD

OF WORK AND ON CAMPUS. UN Women.

https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Lib

rary/Publications/2020/Discussion-paper-Sexual-harassment-against-women-with-

disabilities-en.pdf

United Campus Workers Colorado (Communication Workers of America Local 7799). (2023).

UCW Colorado Fee Waiver History. UCW Colorado. https://www.ucwcolorado.org/

University of Washington. (n.d.). AccessADVANCE: Taking an intersectional approach to

increasing the participation and advancement of STEM faculty with disabilities.

https://www.washington.edu/doit/programs/advance

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). 2015–16 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/data

 Page 327

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Harassment. U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission. Retrieved January 7, 2023, from

https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment

Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (1997). The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice

(1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203046586

Valle, J. W., & Connor, D. J. (2019). Rethinking Disability A Disability Studies Approach to Inclusive

Practices (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Venn, C. (2001). Occidentalism: Modernity and subjectivity. SAGE Publications.

Vergunst, R., & Swartz, L. (2021). ‘He doesn’t understand that he’s struggling with the way I felt’

– university students, psychosocial disability and disclosure in the Western Cape, South

Africa. Disability & Society, 36(2), 226–239.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1730159

Vidali, A. (2010). Out of control: The rhetoric of gastrointestinal disorders: Disability studies.

30(3/4). http://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/1287/1313

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After High School: A first look

at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities (National Longitudinal Transition

Study-2 (NLTS2), pp. i-c10). U.S. Department of Education.

Waterman, S. J. (2019). New Research Perspectives on Native American Students in Higher

Education. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity (JCSCORE), 5(1), 61–

80. JSTOR.
 Page 328

Watermeyer, B., Swartz, L., Lorenzo, T., Schneider, M., & Priestley, M. (2011). Disability and social

change: A South African agenda. University of Cape Town; OpenUCT.

http://hdl.handle.net/11427/4145

Watson-Creed, G. (2022). Gaslighting in academic medicine: Where anti-Black racism lives.

Canadian Medical Association Journal, 194(42), E1451.

https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.212145

Weller, S. C., Vickers, B., Bernard, H., Borgatti, S., & Gravlee, C. C. (2018). Open-ended interview

questions and saturation. PLoS ONE, 13(6), e0198606.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198606

Wendell, S. (1989). Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability. Hypatia, 4(2), 104–124. JSTOR.

Wendell, S. (1996). The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. Routledge

(Publisher); Disability in the Modern World database.

https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic_d

etails%7C3930775

Wilkinson, D. (2016). The difference between organisational culture and climate and why it

matters. Organisational Change , Organisational Development. https://oxford-

review.com/blog-research-difference-culture-climate/

Williams, N. A., & Ware, C. (2019). A tale of two “halfs”: Being Black, while being biracial.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(1), 85–106.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2018.1548036

Winance, M. (2016). Rethinking disability: Lessons from the past, questions for the future.

Contributions and limits of the social model, the sociology of science and technology, and
 Page 329

the ethics of care. Alter, European Journal of Disability Research, 10(2), 99.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2016.02.005

Wofford, A. M., & Blaney, J. M. (2021). (Re)Shaping the Socialization of Scientific Labs:

Understanding Women’s Doctoral Experiences in STEM Lab Rotations. The Review of

Higher Education, 44(3), 357–386. https://doi.org/doi:10.1353/rhe.2021.0001

Wolbring, G. (2008). The Politics of Ableism. Development, 51, 252–258.

https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2008.17

Wolbring, G., Mackay, R., Rybchinski, T., & Noga, J. (2013). Disabled People and the Post-2015

Development Goal Agenda through a Disability Studies Lens. Sustainability, 5(10), 4152–

4182. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5104152

World Health Organization. (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and

Handicaps: A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. World

Health Organization.

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/41003/9241541261_eng.pdf;jsession

id

World Health Organization. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic triggers 25% increase in prevalence of

anxiety and depression worldwide. News. https://www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2022-

covid-19-pandemic-triggers-25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-

worldwide

Yadav, A., Seals, C. D., Sullivan, C. M. S., Lachney, M., Clark, Q., Dixon, K. G., & Smith, M. J. T.

(2020). The Forgotten Scholar: Underrepresented Minority Postdoc Experiences in STEM

 Page 330

Fields. Educational Studies, 56(2), 160–185.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2019.1702552

Yale Medicine. (2022). Ovarian Torsion. YaleMedicine.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/conditions/ovarian-

torsion#:~:text=An%20uncommon%20but%20serious%20condition,in%20the%20organ

%20to%20die.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community

cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

Youth.Gov. (2022). Groups wth Increased Risk. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/youth-suicide-

prevention/increased-risk-groups#_ftn

Zola, I. K. (1972). Medicine as an Institution of Social Control. The Sociological Review, 20(4), 487–

504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1972.tb00220.x

Zola, I. K. (1982). Missing Pieces: A Chronicle of Living with a Disability. Temple Univeristy Press.