ÐÂÔÂÖ±²¥appÏÂÔØ

Cross-analysing disability with sexual orientation shows some stark trends, but the sample sizes are small. However, we do notice a general trend among members who identified their sexual orientation under the LGBT+ umbrella. They are more likely to identify as disabled compared to those who identify as heterosexual.

Employers may be hesitant to cover the costs of adjustments, especially if they have limited knowledge or understanding of the types of accommodations that disabled employees may require.

During our research, participants reported frustration with a lack of accountability for the cost of workplace adjustments- different departments would "pass the buck", leaving them in limbo. Wait times for  or were sometimes prohibitive, and participants reported a lack of assessor expertise regarding science-specific activities such as laboratory work.

Medical evidence requirements also present an administrative and financial burden for the individual and their employer. For example, individuals may need to take time off work to attend additional medical appointments and can face extensive waiting lists.

The time and energy spent pursuing medical evidence and the likelihood of delay may affect work productivity and lead to missed opportunities or reduced performance. There may be associated costs which, in the UK, can range from paid GP letters to expensive private diagnostic routes. Our community reported that the combined impact of these factors far outweighs the cost of providing most workplace adjustments outright, without requiring medical evidence.

Employers and organisations can remove these barriers by:

• Involving disabled employees and staff in creating clearly defined processes and policies that impact them. This approach would help prevent any discriminatory practices and ensure that policies are inclusive and accessible to everyone
• Effectively communicating processes and policies to all employees. Be clear about employees’ rights, accommodations, and support they are entitled to. This supports consistency in how all employees are treated
• Encourage feedback from disabled employees to ensure their voices are heard and their needs are met
• Better training for managers on disability awareness and adjustments so that they can support their disabled colleagues. (Educating all employees on disability awareness and etiquette will help to create a culture where disability is seen as just one aspect of diversity)
• Not solely relying on medical evidence to make adjustments for disabled employees - accessibility is an organisational asset, not a burden

Useful links 

• Our How to make your communications inclusive
• Our How to make spoken communication accessible for disabled people

In the case of ongoing adjustments, disabled staff rely on consistent, inclusive practice from managers, supervisors and colleagues. This means disabled chemists can become reliant on particular individuals, especially where there is a general lack of disability awareness. As a result, they can suffer if there is a change in reporting line.

It's key that organisations demystify lines of accountability and support for obtaining adjustments, and that training is implemented widely to facilitate a whole-organisation approach to disability inclusivity.

For example:

• doorways and turning spaces can be too narrow, and work benches and equipment too high for wheelchair users
• the sensory environment of a lab can be overwhelming for some neurodivergent people – for example, strong odours, loud or persistent noises and bright lights can cause sensory overload

• accessible toilets are sometimes an unreasonable distance away

• equipment and fixtures may not be suitable for use by those with mobility, dexterity or strength impairments

• visual only or audio only information (for example alarms without a flashing light element or vice versa) poses an access issue for those with sensory impairments

Several community projects offer knowledge and resources to support the development of accessible labs.

Useful links

• – Journal of Chemical Education, ACS

However, many websites and applications are not designed with accessibility in mind. They may lack appropriate coding, navigation options, or alternative text for images. This makes them difficult or impossible for some disabled people to use.

Our research shows that submission systems, digital collaborative tools and more specialist software still need to be made available for many in our community. We are reviewing our own resources and systems to improve accessibility. If you notice an area we should improve on please get in touch using the contact details on this page.

Useful links

• – UK Government
• – Worldwide Web Consortium (WC3)

For example, students may require support with job hunting during their transition to full-time employment.

We created two open-access webinar series to share expert guidance on navigating the barriers of disability and mental health:

• ChemCareers disability webinars

These include a with guidance on how to make recruitment and onboarding more accessible and attract disabled talent.

Institution type

Our HESA data analysis shows a disparity in disabled representation between Russell Group and non-Russell Group universities.

As we reported in Missing Elements this trend is comparable with that of chemists from Black and minoritised ethnic backgrounds. Black and Asian chemistry students are less likely to study at a Russell Group university than their White peers. This puts underrepresented groups at a further disadvantage because the more research-intensive Russell Group institutions provide greater opportunities to gain high quality research experience.

During our roundtable discussions, participants noted that these inequalities are present at earlier stages of education. One example cited was the lack of chemistry teaching resources at Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) schools.

Gender

Female undergraduates with a known disability are overrepresented in comparison to female undergraduates as a whole, which aligns with our membership data finding that women are more likely than men to identify as disabled. Female disabled chemists appear to face a steeper decrease than average through doctoral study into non-professorial academic roles. But at professorial level, women’s representation is reduced in all chemistry professors compared to professors with a known disability. As noted above, the complexities associated with disability data and self-identification can impede our ability to interpret quantitative data, and further research into intersectional disabled experiences is needed to clarify this picture.

Read an accessible version of this graph

Ethnicity

Because HESA anonymisation methodology rounds numbers to the nearest five, any number less than 2.5 is rounded down to zero. According to this anonymisation methodology, 2021-22 HESA data shows that, for all non-White ethnicities, there are so few chemistry professors with a known disability that the numbers round down to zero.

As well as demonstrating the compounding impacts of 'double marginalisation' of disability and ethnicity, this also means that disabled students from minoritised ethnic backgrounds are unable to encounter role models who 'look like them' and have personal understanding of their lived experience.

Read an accessible version of this graph

Other factors contribute to this inequality as well as the stigma and discrimination in the hiring and promotion processes. In industry, for example, disabled chemists can feel they have to sacrifice higher paid opportunities in favour of prioritising necessary benefits, such as adequate cover for sick leave.

The survey also showed that disabled chemists were less likely to have high levels of decision-making power in their jobs:

• Only 5% of respondents who said they had executive authority were disabled
• 19% of all respondents who said they had the least decision-making power were disabled 
• While 55% of non-disabled respondents said their role included supervisory responsibilities, this drops to 40% for disabled respondents.

These trends are also reflected in the area of budget responsibility:

• 37% of disabled respondents said they had budgetary responsibilities as part of their role, compared with 51% of non-disabled respondents.

Aspiring disabled chemists are caught in a self-perpetuating cycle that holds them back. The less experience they have of greater responsibility, the less likely they are to advance to positions of greater responsibility.

Our roundtables underlined that stigma and direct discrimination remain prevalent; training, accountability checks, and other initiatives to combat the impact of these in decision-making processes are crucial.

→ See our video on implicit bias

But it’s not as straightforward as changing hearts and minds; there are deeply-embedded material and structural barriers in place for disabled chemists in their careers. As well as tackling implicit bias, organisations need to break down systemic barriers and actively create opportunities for disabled individuals to showcase their skills and leadership potential.

How our disabled and non-disabled members feel about their pay

Read our accessible version

Employees are more likely to feel supported and valued by their employer if they can work flexibly. This fosters a sense of loyalty and commitment, reducing turnover rates and recruitment costs.

Sadly, this is not the experience of many disabled chemists. Our roundtable participants stressed difficulties associated with workload expectations. This is a particular issue in academia and for early career researchers where the pressure to publish is high ("publish or perish").

Those who cannot work long hours (due to a chronic illness, for example) suffer from a culture of overwork and a lack of part-time, remote, and flexible working opportunities, both in industry and academia.

Within the chemistry student community, we see a disparity between those disabled students choosing part-time versus full-time. Our analysis of 2021/2022 HESA data shows that disabled students made up 21.7% of the part-time student population (including all levels of study) compared to 15.7% of full-time students. This disparity is reflected in chemistry careers as well.

In our 2022 Member Survey, 25% of respondents working part-time in academia were disabled, compared to nine percent working full-time. Outside academia, eleven percent of respondents working full-time are disabled, rising to fifteen percent of respondents working part-time, and 22% of respondents with another self-described working pattern.

By offering a variety of working patterns, organisations and institutions can create a more inclusive and supportive environment for staff. This will increase their appeal to a wider pool of candidates and help retain employees who might otherwise seek opportunities elsewhere that better align with their work-life needs.

Our Accessibility Grants provide funding to address the additional costs arising for many, such as extra travel and accommodation costs or to pay an interpreter. But this bottom-up approach must be matched by a top-down commitment to making these events more accessible. Event organisers must anticipate the needs of delegates, such as communication support, rest breaks, comfortable seating and step-free access.

Useful links:

→ How to plan and manage inclusive events

→ How to make spoken communication accessible for disabled people

Many expressed the negative impact of assumptions based on a "deficit" model of disability where the focus is on an individual’s perceived weaknesses or limitations. They emphasised the importance of promoting the social model. This helps focus on creating a disability-inclusive environment and recognises the unique strengths that disabled chemists bring when given equal opportunities to participate fully.

A general lack of disability awareness means disabled chemists can face barriers in the form of unquestioned norms and practices. Participants expressed their frustration with encountering outdated practices defended by the argument of “we’ve always done it this way”, even when those practices excluded disabled people. Examples included needlessly exclusionary health and safety policies, and the predominance of assessments requiring immediate recall and processing of information (such as exams and interviews), which could unfairly disadvantage many.

This burden of self-advocacy could diminish if institutions and organisations made inclusion and diversity a strategic priority. Recognising and rewarding disabled people’s contributions to inclusion in the workplace sends a strong message that an organisation values inclusion, diversity and equality.

There are broader perceptions to challenge too. When it comes to chemistry as a career, research participants cited the "one path" assumption as a barrier. This is the assumption that there is only one traditional (laboratory-based) route to working in the chemical sciences. However, our roundtable participants generally felt that this assumption was diminishing and that a greater diversity of chemistry careers was becoming highlighted.

Disabled role models – at all career stages – would help to demonstrate diverse careers within the chemical sciences. For example, showcases the many ways neurodivergent STEM professionals contribute to science.

In Breaking the Barriers, we reported several factors that impact women’s retention and progression in the chemical sciences. These barriers also impact people with disabilities:

• funding eligibility criteria
• the dominance of short-term contracts
• a "publish or perish" culture characterised by narrow definitions of scientific excellence.

For disabled chemists as well those with caring responsibilities (disproportionately women), additional challenges arise, such as a lack of provision for extended leave if their health or caring requires it and inadequate support upon returning to research after a career break. On top of these issues, research funding rarely provides for those who need to work part-time or flexibly. Our participants described how this can lead to burnout when disabled researchers push themselves to work according to non-disabled norms.