WAARC Emerging headlines

General

WAARC’s aspirations to identify and share anti-ableist research culture have been deeply impacted by our current social, political, historical and economic context where universities are facing real financial difficulties, where EDI work is being globally sidelined and in a national context where disabled people’s benefits are under threat.

Building an anti-ableist culture relies upon the commitment, passion and desire of academic and professional services colleagues who are committed to the politics of anti-ableism.

Any positive changes to university research culture rely on the buy-in and support of senior leaders in the university as well as an openness to truly civic relationships with disabled people and their communities in and outside of the university. 

Disability and neurodivergence are not considerations that are added on to the building of research culture; disability can be the main driver of inclusive, positive and supportive research cultures.

The Wellcome Anti-Ableist Research Culture revealed challenges, touchpoints, tensions and difficulties faced by disabled colleagues in all elements of research culture from recruitment, to work, to research planning and delivery, to research dissemination, public engagement and career development. 

The dynamic and changing nature of research often bumps up against bureaucratic procedures, administrative processes and financial compliance. 

Building an Anti-ableist research culture means working with mundane and everyday forms of university bureaucracy and administration to create a more positive research culture.

Mundane encounters are deeply affecting, tiring and emotionally draining - especially for disabled colleagues - but are all hallmarks of social justice work.

Priority Area 1: Anti-ableist Environments

1. Evidence of successful inclusive job creation and recruitment practices

Recruitment processes should start with the recognition that disabled applicants might already perceive the university to be an unwelcoming and exclusionary institution.

Disability and neurodivergence offer possibilities for rewriting job recruitment from publicity, to shortlisting, to interviewing and to eventual recruitment.

Inclusive recruitment takes time and effort and the support of the university in properly workloading those colleagues involved in these processes. 

2. Case studies of innovative and inclusive employment practices. 

Project Investigators (PIs) of research projects must recognise the time taken and resources required to put in place packages of support for all early career researchers.

Some disabled and neurodivergent researchers draw on support via Access to Work (AtW) which does not necessarily pull in support in a timely nor adequate manner.

There is a need to raise the profile of AtW across Universities and develop literacy amongst academic and professional services colleagues.

Universities should adopt a proactive rather than reactive approach to AtW; channelling resources to properly support accessing and drawing down upon this support.

Priority Area 2: Anti-ableist Developments

3. A set of Guidelines for hosting anti-ableist and inclusive hybrid research events. 

The notion of the ‘post-pandemic’ face-to-face event is problematic and does not recognise the need to put in place forms of access that recognise and support those who are still masking or at risk of Covid-19.

Anti-ableist events demand creative engagements with many forms of access.

Access is a relationship: it requires the commitment of a community of academic and professional services.

Lots of great work on accessible events planning exists, but there is no visibility for this work. A platform for sharing best practice is needed. 

4. A new Inclusive Research Methods course for all researchers in TUOS.

Teaching and sharing inclusive research methods can take many forms from traditional teaching methods and modules to participatory workshops.

We cannot assume ‘inclusive research methods’ are the same across disciplines, or even topics of study. Training is needed on a more bespoke level. 

‘Inclusion’ of those who do not wish to be included can be damaging - researchers may need to be reminded that ‘inclusion’ requires consent to be included. 

University bureaucracy, policies and financial regulations often bump up against the creativity of researchers; challenging the translation of research practices from theory into practice.

Many Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) have pioneered their own forms and kinds of inclusive research methods that university researchers should draw upon.

Priority Area 3: Collaborative Inquiry

5. Funding of a number of research projects delivered in collaboration with disabled people’s organisations.
    

DPOs should be positioned as equal partners in the development of disability research in collaboration with universities.

DPOs should be properly remunerated for their work, skillsets and expertise.

University researchers and DPOs can be paired together to develop research projects that reflect the aspirations of both parties.

A cohort model is productive that brings together different collaborative university/DPO projects to share challenges and good practice.

Incorporate the expertise of a DPO into the making and evaluating of all a research and innovation funding calls. call. 

Offer support to early career academics and DPO applicants to reduce barriers to applying and increase accessibility.

Start conversations early around ethical topics such as Intellectual Property.  and funding early. 

6. Cripping the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers. 

We propose a one day per week commitment of the project to the career development of researchers who are contracted to work on a project.

PIs should commit to working productively with researchers on their career development in relation to scholarship, funding applications and building opportunities for knowledge exchange and public engagement.

Disability and neurodivergence offer real opportunities for rethinking new forms of mentoring, support and capacity building.

Cross-cutting themes

7. An evaluation framework and set of KPIs to document and benchmark progress towards delivering anti-ableist university environments and systems. 

An evaluation framework and set of KPIs is offered by the emerging Aim Higher initiative of NADSn which seeks to document and share inclusive practice in relation to the building of research culture that centres disabled people.

8. Raising profile and university public engagement.

Podcasting is one productive method that provides opportunities for sharing dialogues about the building of anti-ableist research cultures.