Abstract

There is paucity of data examining disparities in salary and representation for disabled scientists, which is needed to advance inclusion and equity for people with disabilities in STEM. Using data from the 2019 Survey of Doctorate Recipients (United States, N = 1,148,817), we show that doctorate recipients working in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) with disabilities experienced early in life (at age <25>2: 647.2; P < 0.0001), among Deans/Presidents (χ2: 27.4; P = 0.0004) and among those with tenure (χ2: 525; P < 0.0001). These findings support a need to expand inclusion efforts, provide equal opportunities for career advancement and improve working conditions for people with disabilities in STEM.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Representation of doctorate recipients with disabilities working in STEM across categories of academic career milestones.

Data availability

SDR 2019 data are publicly available on the NSF’s website (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/datadownload/), and Institutional Review Board approval was not required since data were de-identified. All analyses were conducted using R Studio v.2021.09.1. Documentation on the ‘weightit’ (v.0.14.2) and ‘cobalt’ (v.4.5.1) R packages used for propensity score computation and assessment of covariate balance can be found at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cobalt/index.html and https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/WeightIt/index.html. The code used for our analyses can be found in Supplementary Information (Methods 1).

References

  1. Varadaraj, V., Deal, J. A., Campanile, J., Reed, N. S. & Swenor, B. K. National prevalence of disability and disability types among adults in the US, 2019. JAMA Netw. Open https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30358 (2021).

  2. Women, Minorities, and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering (National Science Foundation, 2021); https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321

  3. Swenor, B. K., Munoz, B. & Meeks, L. M. A decade of decline: grant funding for researchers with disabilities 2008 to 2018. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228686 (2020).

  4. Bernard, M. A. Advancing disability inclusion in the scientific workforce. NIH Blog https://diversity.nih.gov/blog/2021-07-21-advancing-disability-inclusion-scientific-workforce (2021).

  5. Cech, E. A. The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM. Sci. Adv. 8, 24 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  6. Freund, K. M. et al. Inequities in academic compensation by gender: a follow-up to the national faculty survey cohort study. Acad. Med. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001250 (2016).

  7. Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2019 (National Science Foundation, 2021); https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21320

  8. Berghs, M., Atkin, K., Graham, H., Hatton, C. & Thomas, C. in Implications for Public Health Research of Models and Theories of Disability: A Scoping Study and Evidence Synthesis Ch. 3 (Public Health Research No. 4.8, NIHR Journals Library, 2016).

  9. Dutta, A. et al. Social-cognitive career theory predictors of STEM career interests and goal persistence in minority college students with disabilities: a path analysis. J. Vocat. Rehabil. 43, 159–167 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  10. Survey of Earned Doctorates 2020: Median Age and Distribution of Doctorate Recipients, by Broad Field of Study, Sex, Citizenship Status, Ethnicity, and Race (National Science Foundation, 2021); https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22300/data-tables

  11. Austin, P. C. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar. Behav. Res. 46, 399–424 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  12. Mann, D. R. & Wittenburg, D. C. Starting behind: wage and employment differentials between young adults with and without disabilities. J. Disabil. Policy Stud. 26, 89–99 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  13. Campanile, J. et al. Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded US undergraduate institutions. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277249 (2022).

  14. Goodman, N.M., Morris, Z., Morris, M. & McGarity, S. The Extra Costs of Living With a Disability in the U.S.—Resetting the Policy Table (NDI, 2020); https://www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/reports/extra-costs-living-with-disability/

  15. Hawley, C. E. et al. College graduation to employment in STEM careers: the experience of new graduates at the intersection of underrepresented racial/ethnic minority status and disability. Rehabil. Res. Policy Educ. 28, 183–199 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  16. Manyibe, E. O. et al. Career development factors for minority disability and health research leaders: a key informant study. Rehabil. Res. Policy Educ. 31, 208–229 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  17. Lee, A. A comparison of postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) enrollment for students with and without disabilities. Career Dev. Transit. Except. Individ. 34, 72–82 (2011).


    Google Scholar     

  18. Dali, K. The right to be included: ensuring the inclusive learning and work environment for people with disabilities in academia. Inf. Learn. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2018-0032 (2018).

  19. Peterson, S. & Saia, T. Disability, intersectionality, and the experiences of doctoral students. Rehabil. Couns. Educ. J. https://doi.org/10.52017/001c.31773 (2022).

  20. Rao, S. & Gartin, B. C. Attitudes of university faculty toward accommodations to students with disabilities. J. Vocat. Spec. Needs Educ. 25, 47–54 (2003).


    Google Scholar     

  21. Goodwin, M. E. Making the Invisible Visible: Let’s Discuss Invisible Disabilities HAPS Educator Special Conference edn, 62–73 (ERIC, 2020).

  22. Macfarlane, K. A. Disability without documentation. Fordham Law Rev. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3781221 (2021).

  23. Balcazar, F. E. et al. Improving the transition outcomes of low-income minority youth with disabilities. Exceptionality 20, 114–132 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  24. da Silva Cardoso, E. et al. Social-cognitive predictors of STEM career interests and goal persistence in college students with disabilities from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. Rehabil. Res. Policy Educ. 27, 271–284 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  25. National Science Foundation’s Program for Persons with Disabilities (National Science Foundation, 2002); https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02094/nsf02094.pdf

  26. Davis, N. A. Invisible disability. Ethics 116, 153–213 (2005).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  27. Hagerman, T. K. & Houtrow, A. J. Variability in prevalence estimates of disability among children in the National Survey of Children’s Health. JAMA Pediatr. 175, 307–310 (2021).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  28. van Bastelaer, A., Lemaître, G. & Marianna, P. The Definition of Part-time Work for the Purpose of International Comparisons OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occas. Pap. No. 22 (OECD Publishing, 1997).

  29. Hasanah, U. Key definitions of STEM education: Literature review. Interdiscip. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/8336 (2020).

  30. McCaffrey, D. F. et al. A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models. Stat. Med. 32, 3388–3414 (2013).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar     

  31. Funk, M. J. et al. Doubly robust estimation of causal effects. Am. J. Epidemiol. 173, 761–767 (2011).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar     

  32. DuGoff, E. H., Schuler, M. & Stuart, E. A. Generalizing observational study results: applying propensity score methods to complex surveys. Health Serv. Res. 49, 284–303 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  33. Age and Sex Composition in the Unites States: 2010 (US Census Bureau, 2010); https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2010/demo/age-and-sex/2010-age-sex-composition.html

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the National Science Foundation for their support with inquiries regarding SDR 2019 data. This research received no specific grant from any agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johns Hopkins Disability Health Research Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Franz Castro, Varshini Varadaraj & Bonnielin K. Swenor

  2. Departments of Mental Health, Biostatistics, Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Elizabeth Stuart

  3. Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Jennifer Deal

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Jennifer Deal & Bonnielin K. Swenor

  5. Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Jennifer Deal

Authors

  1. Franz Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in
    PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in
    PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Deal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in
    PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Varshini Varadaraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in
    PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bonnielin K. Swenor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in
    PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.C., E.S. and B.K.S. conceptualized the project. F.C., E.S., V.V. and B.K.S. developed the methodology. F.C. developed software. F.C., E.S., J.D., V.V. and B.K.S. conducted formal analysis. F.C. curated data. F.C. wrote the original draft of the paper. E.S., J.D., V.V. and B.K.S. reviewed and edited the paper. F.C. and E.S. performed visualization. B.K.S. supervised the project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Bonnielin K. Swenor.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Ilhom Akobirshoev, Kristina Petersen and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1–4, Tables 1 and 2, and Methods 1.

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castro, F., Stuart, E., Deal, J. et al. STEM doctorate recipients with disabilities experienced early in life earn lower salaries and are underrepresented among higher academic positions.
Nat Hum Behav (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01745-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01745-z