All posts by Rachel

Disability and Illness, Social Mobility

Annual event?

Leave a comment

Empty conference

With the new academic year just about upon us, the Guardian has published two articles online this week about the accessibility of academic conferences. The first focuses on disability and how too many conferences, perhaps without intention, exclude a large disabled contingent simply by the nature of their design. The article claims that accessible routes on transport, access to rooms and lecture halls, and often long and intensive days all act as significant barriers for anyone with a disability. Importantly, the article also address the more ‘hidden’ disabilities, such as the social difficulties someone with autism might face at a large conference dinner, or the stresses associated with needing to follow a strict diet without reassurance this will be provided.The fact is that worries about these potential obstacles to a smooth conference are preventing certain academics from attending them. Which means we are missing out on their expertise, ideas and knowledge when relatively simple measures could be put into place to make their experience better. It might not be intentional. But it’s still discrimination.

Another barrier to access at conferences highlighted in a different article is a financial one. In recent years, the nature of conferences has changed considerably, moving from small University-based gatherings to delegations in their thousands at expensive hotels, complete with a programme of social events. Costs have soared. Which means that many early career researchers with miniscule budgets for academic travel are being excluded by default. This means that the delegations tend to be comprised of the Big Grant Guys: The professors and senior academics who attend every year to network with the same people and present work from the same labs. Which is all well and good, if it was interspersed with some new faces to learn from them who would bring their own fresh ideas. But if they can’t afford to go, does anything really move forwards?

Our EDI team in the Faculty of Medical Sciences has been working on an events Code of Practice (CoP) to address exactly these issues. We want to make sure that nobody  is excluded from attending an event, regardless of their background or disability. Where possible, all of our events and workshops are free to attend and we work closely with units across the faculty to find ways to better support early career researchers to attend external conferences. Our new CoP encourages event organisers to think carefully about sectors they are recruiting from to ensure as diverse a mix of speakers and delegates as possible. It also prompts organisers to consider aspects such as accessibility for disabilities, and providing a sensitive and comfortable environment for all.

We would encourage more conference organisers to consider the wider spectrum of potential delegates in future, to provide accessible and affordable access to what are incredibly useful forums for change and ideas…

Social Mobility

Bigger than bullies

Leave a comment

Lego police 

A report on today’s BBC news has highlighted how ‘almost 40%’ of 10-17 year olds are worried about crime. Was theft, stalking or assault something that you worried about as a teenager? Or has something shifted in society to make this a prime teenage cause for concern?

The findings come from The Children’s Society annual report, which notes the disturbing finding that happiness amongst the 3000 children surveyed every year is falling, and that other concerns such as parental debt and money struggles are a large anxiety for many. These are adult concerns that children as young as 10 years old are worrying about. As practitioners in the educational and medical professions, we need to be aware of these difficulties and start to think about how we can offer support.

Where crime is concerned at least, the reality might not be as bleak as the perception. 17% of children reported a crime in the last year, suggesting that the probability of being a victim is nowhere near as high as the number of children worrying about it. The report suggests that the prevalence of social media may be to blame in highlighting and exaggerating crimes without really providing a context or reassurance for children. Nonetheless, the fact remains that many children, often from already deprived or vulnerable backgrounds, are living in fear of crimes that are stealing away the innocence of their childhood.

Given that many individuals will leave home to come to University, reassurance and support about crime and money worries should be an important consideration, especially in ensuring the most vulnerable and affected have a safe and protected route into education. Many Universities now have active campaigns to ensure safety on campuses, but perhaps outreach work could begin earlier to address and ameliorate some of the underlying issues and concerns. If we are serious about encouraging a more diverse cohort into Higher Education, we need to be pro-active in understanding where they’re coming from. Reports such as this one can be a great place to start…

Gender Equality

Pink spacesuits?

Leave a comment

Astronauts

Can women be astronauts? This seems to have been a theme on the BBC over the last couple of weeks, with two different TV programmes addressing issues of career gender roles and stereotypes. The first, ‘No more boys and girls’, documented the work of Dr Abdelmoneim and his experiment to examine whether making small interventions to the classroom environment could change the strict gender-typed views of 7 year olds. The premise was a good one: To challenge traditional stereotypes about what boys and girls can do by pointing out equalities rather than differences. The execution? A developmental psychologist might be left saying ‘Hmmm’. No verbal matching. No matched control group. Massive long tasks for busy parents to complete. Sweeping conclusions based on a handful of children in a community school on the Isle of Wight. It actually downplayed the fantastic work that many schools across the UK are already doing to promote gender neutrality in schools. There are girls’ football teams. Children may well have seen a male ballet dancer. And most 7 year olds probably know that a woman can go into space too. Great that it made parents stop to think about the influence they were having. And great that some of the girls came away with higher self-esteem whilst some of the boys found a new love of sewing. But ground-breaking or revolutionary, it was not.

Perhaps more encouraging was Sunday night’s documentary about 12 astronaut applicants. Where men and women from all sorts of backgrounds (From surgeon to mountaineer to PhD student-come-ballet dancer) were filmed going through the rigour of the astronaut selection process. No fuss was made about the gender, age or background of each person. It was simply about how difficult a profession it is and how much each individual had achieved to get so far. Showing how everyone overcomes their own barriers and that gender or race have nothing to do with ambition. So perhaps this is the way to teach children about gender equality. Instead of priming them with tasks that are all about gender expectations, actually just let them see, without the labels or rules, what any individual is capable of.

What do you think works best to teach our next generation that the presence of a Y chromosome (or not) doesn’t matter? How can we encourage true gender equality in our youth…?

Social Mobility

Prevention or Cure?

Leave a comment

University door

With A-Level results being published this week and UK Universities gearing up for clearing, talk in the HE sector has turned, once again, to standard-setting in the ‘elite’ institutions. A report from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) in collaboration with the social mobility charity Brightside was released yesterday with the recommendation that ‘top’ UK institutions should take the context of applicants more into account, lowering offers from AAA to 3 Cs.Their argument is that students from under-privileged or deprived backgrounds should be given the opportunity to gain access to education, and not be penalised for lower grades that are a product of their social environment rather than ability or intellect.

Do you agree? Here at Newcastle Uni, like many Russell Group institutions, schemes are already in place to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds gain access to degree programmes. Foundation degrees allow students to supplement their grades with a year of study whilst summer programmes provide a route in by providing intense training that guarantees lower entry offers.But the HEPI report argues that this is not enough: A foundation degree is an extra year of fees that not everybody can afford, and lowering grades by 1 or 2 points still may not help.

The issue is perhaps whether we are looking to prevent or cure the barriers. Yes, you can lower grades so that students who wouldn’t otherwise make the standard can get through the doors. But what happens then? If their social and economic backgrounds have posed barriers to them achieving what they’re capable of through school, what is to say anything changes when they become freshers? Perhaps instead of simply lowering the Uni gates, we need to be building a smoother path to get there.

It seems that perhaps a more robust solution might be to target the barriers that exist in the first place. It’s not acceptable that an individual’s social circumstances should prevent them from achieving to their maximum ability. We shouldn’t be living in a world where students are ‘labelled’ by their entitlement to free school meals and then given ‘special’ considerations to get onto courses where the grades are set high for good academic reason. Instead we should be supporting students to achieve their full potential so that they can make the grades. And will enter the Uni gates knowing that they have the same academic talent as all of their peers to succeed on challenging degree courses.

‘Letting people in’ is perhaps not the issue. Allowing people to come in might be more on point…

 

 

Disability and Illness

Not everything can be seen

Leave a comment

Invisible

How many of your colleagues do you know to have a disability? If asked this question, what mental check-lists do you go through? People you’ve seen using a wheelchair; somebody who has a guide-dog; perhaps that person who wears the coloured-glasses in lectures? But what about the ‘invisible’ disabilities that don’t have a physical badge? It’s relatively easy to be aware of and support the needs of people with clear physical disability. Either as a colleague, friend or employer, putting in a wheelchair ramp, offering to guide someone through a venue they haven’t been to before, or making sure you speak clearly and loudly, are not difficult things to do. And there’s little stigma in asking for them either. But what about the disabilities we can’t immediately see? The person who might have a panic attack if they hear a certain sound? Somebody who suffers excruciating pain holding a phone? The person who is over-whelmed by anxiety if there’s an odd number of windows in the room? Or the person who needs a private space to change a stoma?

10% of Americans are reported to have an invisible disability; that’s a lot of people. Perhaps the question might be, however, are these disabilities invisible or are they hidden? Hidden because of the social stigmas attached to admitting that you have a disorder such as OCD, bipolar or depression? Hidden because you think it won’t make a difference to your support or quality of life by ‘revealing’ them? Hidden because the disability that you’re suffering from isn’t in a diagnostic manual and doesn’t have any known biological cause?

This is not to give the impression that things are perfect for individuals with visible disabilities. The flip side of the coin might be that many people who have no choice but to ‘announce’ their disability might vehemently wish they could keep it hidden. Perhaps because they feel it makes people treat them differently or judge them in some way. Which is also an issue that needs rectifying.

There is a need to raise awareness of these types of disability, and reach a point where the same support and policies are in place as what exist for the more visible ones. Of course, it might be that many people choose not to disclose anything about their disability and would rather it stayed ‘invisible’. But that shouldn’t mean they can’t have access to resources and accommodations at work if they do wish to seek a bit more support. Nobody chooses to have a disability. Invisible or not, it should never be a definition of who somebody is.