Background

The disability rights movement, enhanced by the work of critical disability theorists, asserts that persons with disabilities ought to have equal access to all aspects of social life and key sites of power, including education and employment (Oliver & Barnes, 1993; Rioux, 2002; 2003). In an effort to achieve this goal, provincial and federal governments in Canada have established incentives and laws that compel both universities and employers to be accessible for persons with disabilities, including Employment Equity policies, human rights laws, and more recent advances to Ontario's disability policies (Bynner & Parsons, 2002; Duquette, 2000; Government of Canada, 1999, Heckhausen, 2002; Ontario Government, 2001; 2005; 2012). The Ontario Government, for example, provides incentives for employers to hire persons with disabilities and offers tax deductions to employers who modify the workplace to better serve the needs of employees with disabilities (Ontario Government, 2001; 2005; 2012). These initiatives make it easier for employers to acquire specialized equipment, or offer specific training to accommodate the diverse needs of persons with disabilities in the work force.

It is expected that human rights legislation and government incentives would enable persons with disabilities to be meaningfully engaged in the labour force; however, the existing lower employment rates for persons with disabilities suggest that there are still obstacles to overcome, both in the workplace and in the community at large (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2012). Research has indicated that persons with disabilities are more often unemployed than their non-disabled counterparts (Canadian Council on Learning, 2007; U.S. Department of Labor, 2001). Statistics Canada (2008) reported the employment rate for Canadians with disabilities as 49.3% in 2001 and 53.5% in 2006, while the employment rate for their non-disabled counterparts was 73.8 % in 2001 and 75.1% in 2006. An American study noted that 52% of non-working adults with disabilities felt discouraged from looking for work because they perceived that no appropriate jobs were available (U.S. Department of Labor, 2001).

Over the past twenty years, Canada has experienced an increase in students with disabilities attending Canadian universities and obtaining university degrees (Duquette, 2000; Fichten et al., 2003; 2012; Wolforth, 1998). This rise is likely a result of recent anti-discrimination laws, an increase in support services offered to persons with disabilities, and an increasing need for higher education to obtain employment (Duquette, 2000; Fichten et al., 2003; Hill, 1992). While a university education provides students with knowledge and enhanced skills that will assist them in the workforce, it appears that many educated persons with disabilities will not obtain the jobs they desire upon graduation (Fichten et al., 2012). A 2006 report from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (2006) found that the employment rate of postsecondary graduates with disabilities was 73.8% compared to 83.6% of their non-disabled peers.

Fichten et al. (2012) examined the experiences of graduates from three large, urban junior/community colleges 5 to 10 months after graduation. They found that while there was little difference in the employment rate between graduates with and without disabilities, the graduates with disabilities were employed less often in a job related to their field of study.

Discrimination, negative attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and physical workplace barriers can prevent persons with a disability from obtaining meaningful employment (National Organization on Disability, 2002a; Wehmen, 1996). Research indicates that 36% of employed Americans with a disability encountered some type of workplace discrimination because of their disability, and 50% of those persons believe they were refused a job because of their disability (Stoddard et al., 1998 as cited in Center, 2011). Typical examples of workplace discrimination include not being accommodated within the workplace, being given less responsibility, being paid less than workers without a disability, being refused a promotion, and being refused an interview (National Organization on Disability, 2002a).

While employers have been encouraged to remove physical barriers in the workplace, not much can be done to remove attitudinal barriers "which still bar disabled people from employment: access to initial and continued employment will still depend on employers" (Stevens, 2002, p. 782). Legislative movements help to promote equal access and opportunities, but offer limited assistance in decreasing the negative stereotypes that exist regarding persons with disabilities within the community. The incorporation of innovative technological devices may enable persons with disabilities to perform work related tasks; however, these modifications may not alter employers' perceptions of the capabilities of persons with disabilities or facilitate inclusion at the company level, particularly for those who are resistant to change (Stevens, 2002). Russell (2002) further argues that private enterprise adds additional challenges since private employers cannot be forced to make employment available to all those who seek it. Systemic barriers to employment for persons with disabilities, including persons with post-secondary education, therefore persist. As Russell (2002) comments in relation to initiatives designed to increase the employability of persons with disabilities, "however well intended, this seems a futile ploy in a fixed game where disabled workers are at the bottom of the competitive labour market and that labour market is, by design, structured to leave millions of workers under-employed and unemployed" (p. 130-131).

The employment interview process also poses barriers that oppress persons with disabilities (Duckett, 2000). Problems can surface regarding whether to disclose a disability, either before or during in an interview. Many choose to conceal it, since disabilities are typically associated with a deficit and persons with highly visible disabilities are particularly discriminated against (Duckett, 2000; Stevens, 2002). Furthermore, with increasing incentives for employers to hire persons with a disability, a person with a disability may prefer to be hired on merit and not solely because of their disability. Many interviews incorporate ability tests, pre-employment medical tests, and health-related questions, which can disadvantage persons with disabilities (Duckett, 2000). Duckett's qualitative study found that persons with disabilities felt anxious and manipulated while being interviewed, suggesting that employers ought to utilize more ethical, rather than simply technical methods of interviewing.

While it is a notable achievement for students with disabilities to graduate from university, many are often disappointed when they discover that they will not receive the jobs they aspired to obtain (Bynner & Parsons, 2002). Persons with disabilities are typically at risk of being marginalized in the workforce and can usually anticipate either unemployment or working in short-term, unskilled jobs (Bynner, Ferri & Shephard, 1997). While research can suggest some explanations for the low employment rates of persons with disabilities, it remains difficult to fully understand why the employment rates are so low, and more importantly, how this social problem can be remedied. It remains clear that increased Canadian human rights and anti-discrimination laws do not equate with increased employment rates. Russell (2002) found that while the Americans with Disabilities Act aims to increase employment for persons with disabilities, it has not resulted in increased employment, suggesting that the Act has not provided much support for working-aged persons with disabilities. Russell explains that this is, in part, due to the failure of the courts to enforce the Act, and because modern capitalism perpetuates the struggle of persons with disabilities in the U.S. labor force. She argues that the Act cannot diminish the systemic economic discrimination that exists today, and civil rights cannot guarantee employment or equality. Duckett (2000) furthers this argument by claiming that even with anti-discrimination legislation in place, employment rates for Americans with disabilities are "getting worse more slowly rather than getting better" (p. 1032).

There is a large body of research on the topic of school to work transitions, given its importance as a developmental phenomenon for individuals, as well as being a broader societal concern with economic (human capital) implications. The transition from school to work is a pivotal point in many students' lives, since it is related to their economic and psychosocial well-being (Gillies & Pedlar, 2003; Heckhausen, 2002), and it often determines their future (Bynner & Parsons, 2002). In this regard, the transition from school to work can very often be thought of as a right of passage to adulthood (Heckhausen, 2002). While this period of transition can present opportunities for growth and increased social mobility for some, it can also be a time for decline and downward mobility for others (Heckhausen, 2002). Those who are marginalized, and do not possess characteristics deemed necessary by employers, "face difficulties not only in entering employment but in sustaining any kind of fulfilling career" which can have far reaching implications on their lives and futures (Bynner & Parsons, 2002, p. 2).

It appears that students who do not receive the proper guidance and support during the transitional periods of their lives may become stuck inside a transition (Heckhausen, 2002). It has been recognized that support services within a university environment can better prepare students with a disability for the transition from school to work and for a new life within their community (National Educational Association of Disabled Students, 2012). Although the transitional experience of youth with disabilities is well documented (Davies & Beamish, 2009; Estrada-Hernandez, Wadsworth, Nietupski, Warth & Winslow, 2008; Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997; Test, et al., 2009; Wagner & Blackorby, 1996; Winn & Hay, 2009), very little is known about the experiences of postsecondary graduates with disabilities and how students' lives evolve once they leave the university community in pursuit of meaningful employment (Fichten et al., 2012).

Purpose

In order to address this gap, this qualitative study was undertaken in order to contribute to an understanding of the lives of university graduates with disabilities as they move through the transitional stage from post-secondary education to the workforce. The primary research questions were: (a) What is the current employment status of these recent university graduates?, (b) What helped or hindered the transitional process?, and (c) What role did formal and information supports play throughout this transition?

Method

In order to protect the confidentiality of students, representatives from the Office for Persons with Disabilities and the Alumni Office of a south-western Ontario university emailed students and recent graduates the study's recruitment letter using their student email list on the researcher's behalf. Although emails were sent to over 200 students and alumni, only five persons indicated an interested in participating in the study. A key informant, who was acquainted with several graduates with a disability, contacted five other potential participants and provided them with information on the study. Four participants responded directly to the researcher who then scheduled interviews at a place and time convenient for them. The last participant was recruited through snowball sampling.

In 2003, open-ended and active interviews were conducted with 10 participants (three male and seven female) who had varying disabilities. Specifically, participants had sensory disabilities (including hearing and visual impairments), learning disabilities (including ADHD and Nonverbal Learning Disorder), and physical disabilities (including Spinal Muscular Dystrophy, Spinal Cord Injury, Cerebral Palsy, Multiple Sclerosis, and Crohn's Disease). Participants were alumni from three different universities in Southwestern Ontario. The participants lived in cities across Ontario, namely Ottawa, Toronto, Goderich, Waterloo, and Kitchener, and had varied living arrangements, in that some lived alone, with their parents, another roommate, or a fiancé/spouse. All had completed an undergraduate university degree, and most completed post-graduate education, such as teachers college, graduate school or a college diploma. Requirements for participation were that individuals would have graduated from their last degree at least six months prior to the interview, and been living within the community no longer than three years. This length of time was chosen as it allowed sufficient time to experience community life after graduation, yet it was still recent enough for the alumni to vividly remember the transitional experience.

The framework for data analysis was Strauss and Corbin's grounded theory approach, where the researcher identified possible relationships among concepts and sets of concepts, but interpretations aimed to maintain the integrity of the data by including the perspectives and voices of participants (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This involved constant movement between the data, concepts, and categories to fully understand and explain what was being researched. Once categories and patterns within the data were identified, themes began to emerge (Patton, 2002). Analysis of the data continued until saturation occurred. Data were triangulated by employing member checking of major emergent themes and peer reviews (Creswell, 2003). Ideas and constructs were clarified both throughout and following the interview process and self-reflections were documented in a research journal. These approaches assisted in establishing rigor and trustworthiness. NVivo software was used to assist in the organization and management of data. To ensure confidentiality, pseudonyms have been used for all participants and any identifying characteristics have been removed.

Findings

Data analysis revealed four main themes. These were: (a) Attaining Meaningful Employment, (b) Experiencing Discrimination, (c), Disclosing a Disability, and (d) Constructing an Identity.

Discussion/Conclusion

Findings from this study suggest that educated, university graduates with disabilities continue to face structural, attitudinal, and systemic barriers when seeking meaningful employment. Many even experienced what they perceived to be blatant discrimination because they had a disability. Although many were employed, most were underemployed and felt that they were not living the life that they expected prior to graduation. This realization, coupled with perceptions of employment inequalities, clearly impacted their sense of self and their sense of identity. The participants described University as a place where they felt comfortable and included and had access to a range of supports. It was almost as though once they left university, they had to embrace a label of disability in order to obtain employment. They also had to learn how to navigate their way through the employment system. Specifically, they had to learn how and when to conceal a disability and when to seek supports and accommodations. Given the difficulty of finding work, and the challenges experienced once employed, it may be that some persons with disabilities choose to extend their time at University by pursuing advanced degrees in order to remain comfortable and supported.

Many of the hardships experienced by the graduates could have been prevented by implementing simple strategies both within universities and in the workplace. As previously mentioned, the participants noted how members within the university community, including faculty and staff at the offices for students with disabilities, helped make the university a place where they felt included and supported. This is a vivid endorsement of the universities attended by the participants and should be a model for other public and private sectors. However, postsecondary institutions can further support their graduates with disabilities by preparing them for the transition into the workforce. Participants mentioned that staff members from the University's Office for Persons with Disabilities offered informal support by providing employment references or friendly advice. The universities could, however, provide more formal transitional support, such as offering sessions on résumé writing, interviewing, and job searching, all specifically geared to address the particular challenges faced by persons with disabilities. A transitional support worker could be hired as a liaison between the university and the workforce and a mentorship program and social support and networking options may also be valuable.

Workplaces are also encouraged to adopt person first attitudes where they hire based on qualifications while adhering to a basic code of respect and understanding. Employers must be sensitive to the fact that persons with disabilities may communicate and approach work tasks in a way that is different from other employees; however, it does not mean that persons with disabilities will not contribute effectively to the workplace. Employers should ask questions, learn about the person as an individual, and understand what the person's disability actually entails. Biases, stereotypes, and preconceived expectations of persons with a disability need to be reflected on and then curbed. Negative beliefs, fears, or uncertainty about hiring a person with a disability often stem from a lack of awareness. Educational opportunities within all levels of the workforce related to disability, including awareness about workplace accommodations, incentives, and accessibility standards would be an asset.

Undoubtedly there have been great strides in ensuring that persons with a disability are able to achieve post-secondary education, but as one participant, Bryan, questioned, have these incentives actually assisted persons with a disability in attaining employment? As he stated:

I think people with disabilities of my generation, to even have contemplated the university type experiences, have gotten somewhere. Because I think too much before, we started with elementary type schooling. There wouldn't have been that possibility [of University]…But on the other hand, where exactly are we in the end of the process?…I think there is a basic openness to having people with disabilities first off educated and second off in some sort of employment role, which is all helpful in the grand picture, but the specific picture, I am not sure if people with disabilities are better off in general (Brian).

Even more, do laws and government incentives contribute to enhancing the lives of persons with disabilities and our communities, financially, socially, structurally, and attitudinally? Findings from this study suggest that the state of the employment market does not meet the tenets of the critical disability movement which holds government, and employers, responsible for providing economic and social supports to enable "social and economic integration, self-determination, legal and social rights" (Rioux, 2003, p. 296).

The fact then that only two (or 20%) of the participants in this study were temporarily unemployed is encouraging, and perhaps exceptional when compared to the aforementioned national statistics. This positive employment outcome may be a result of the unique sample, in which many of the participants had post-graduate degrees and thus had the resources and qualifications necessary for employment. However, the lack of meaningful employment, particularly employment that met their interests and qualifications, had negative implications for participants. Employment is essential as it is the key to most of the critical aspects of life, such as housing, transportation, leisure, education and general community involvement (National Organization on Disability, 2002b). Exclusion from employment and these key sites of social life has far reaching implications. It influences one's identity, self-esteem, mental health, and sense of worth (Canadian Mental Health Association, 2012a; Sheeran, Abrams & Orbell, 1995). It influences one's financial status and stability, which impacts overall quality of life, including access to nutrition, physical fitness, and social engagement (Canadian Mental Health Association, 2012b). It creates stigma, prejudices, and assumptions. Ultimately, this exclusion limits the ability of persons with disabilities to meaningfully engage in life, thereby adding to the perceived 'burden' of disability. This burden of disability serves to perpetuate biomedical and psychological models of illness and disease where people with disabilities are associated with dysfunction and dependence, and objectified in ways such as being a 'victim' or 'helpless' (Dupuis et al., 2011; Hockey & James, 1993).

The burden of disability further supports bio-medical approaches that focus on 'fixing' individuals while little attention is paid to rectifying oppressive social structures. One would only need to conduct a cursory search of biomedical articles related to disability to see how disability is constructed as a financial burden to the healthcare system. Literature pertaining to caregiving for persons with disabilities will reveal how disability is constructed as a social burden to caregivers, without much recognition of the reciprocity that is involved in these caring relationships (Dupuis, Epp, & Smale, 2004; Dupuis & Norris, 1997). The low employment rates of persons with disabilities is seen as a financial burden to society and strain on our economic system, without recognizing how persons with disabilities are being burdened by a society that is unaccommodating and unwelcoming. Perhaps more attention needs to focus on the social construction of disability in order to deconstruct and dismantle harmful and stereotypical notions of disability. It is also necessary to move towards more humanistic and empowering perspectives of disabilities, such as the human rights approach to disability, which views disability as an inherent part of society where the responsibility of disability is shared among society (Rioux, 2002; 2003). As Wendell (1997) states:

The problems of living with a disability are not private problems, separable from the rest of life and the rest of society. They are problems which can and should be shared throughout the culture as much as we share the problems of love, work and family life…We need to bring this knowledge into the culture and to transform the culture and society so that everyone can receive and make use of it, so that it can be fully integrated, along with disabled people, into a shared social life (p. 277).