Singapore Spring Institute March 2026

• Introduction and venue details 
• Day 1 - Monday 2nd March 2026 
• Day 2 - Tuesday 3rd March 2026
• Day 3 - Wednesday 4th March 2026
• Full papers of presentations

Introducing the Spring Institute

What might it mean to engage with disability as the driving authority in rethinking the university? In what ways do disabled academics and professional services colleagues experience the university? And how can we make our university environments more welcoming, more inclusive and more attractive to disabled staff? This Spring Institute of the Disability Matters research programme centralises the perspectives of Singaporean disability studies researchers and research professionals with contributions from UK colleagues. We are also delighted to invite Dr Miro Griffiths (University of Leeds) to give the 2026 iHuman Critical Disability Studies Anita Ghai Lecture. This event is organised by Professor Wong Meng Ee and Kerri Heng (National Institute of Education, NTU, Singapore) and Professors Dan Goodley and Rebecca Lawthom (iHuman, University of Sheffield, UK). 

The event is invite only and we will be holding this Spring Institute at
Training Room 502 at the NTU @ one-north campus in Bouna Vista.
Here is a link to their website: https://www.ntu.edu.sg/life-at-ntu/leisure-and-dining/ntu@one-north
Here you will find out about directions: Link to How to get to NTU North
 

DAY 1: Monday 2 March 2026
Singapore meets UK Disability Studies
10am to 11 am:  Disability and the university: A case for depathologisation by Dan Goodley and Rebecca Lawthom (University of Sheffield) 
11 am to 12pm: The Inclusion Roadmap: Mapping Practical Strategies for Job Seekers in Singapore by Sonali Biswas, Lynn Tan, Sandy Lim, and Angeline Lim (National University of Singapore)
12pm to 1:30pm Lunch
1:30pm to 2:30pm: A Typology of Transitions: What It Means for Our Work with Students at University by Issac Lim (Anthro Insights & NUS Business School)
2:30pm to 3.00pm Wrap up.
 

[delegates return home in time for Miro’s session]

5pm Singapore time / 9am UK time (held on zoom): The 2026 iHuman Critical Disability Studies Anita Ghai Lecture given by Dr Miro Griffiths, Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds
register here

Zoom link: this will be released on the morning on this page

Resistance Practices and Inclusive Imaginations: Young Disabled People's Participation in Disability Activism and their Ideas for Accessible and Inclusive Societies Across Europe

Abstract
This session will present findings from a monograph soon to be published on young disabled people’s participation in disability activism across Europe. The session will highlight key areas of consideration across the following five themes: importance of participating in disability activism; restrictions to participation; improvements to participation; activities and types of participation; and future imaginings for accessible and inclusive societies. The aim of the session is to capture insights into how young disabled people experience participation in social change approaches, and what young disabled people’s imaginings reveal about challenging injustice, resisting discrimination, and articulating avenues for realising a better world.

References
Griffiths M (2025) ‘I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings’: Community-Based Inclusive Development and Disability Studies. In: Weber J; Grech S eds Community-Based Inclusive Development, Palgrave Studies in Disability and International Development, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 101-122.
Miro Griffiths. Declare Independence. International Journal of Disability and Social Justice. 2023. Vol. 3(1):24-41. DOI: 10.13169/intljofdissocjus.3.1.0024

DAY 2: Tuesday 3 March
Singapore disability studies
10am to 11 am: Inclusive Hiring in Higher Education: An Analysis of DEI, Disability, and Health in Singapore Universities’ Job Advertisements - Kerri Heng Yi Ping and Meng Ee Wong 
11 am to 12pm: Crip joy in the university by Rachel S.Y. Chen (NTU Linguistics and Multilingual Studies)
12pm to 1:30pm Lunch
1:30pm to 2:30pm: What is disability studies by Victor Zhuang (NTU Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information)
2:30pm to 3:30pm A Reflexive Account of my Positionality as a Deaf Insider-Outsider Researcher by Phoebe Tay (NTU Linguistics and Multilingual Studies)
3:30pm to 4pm wrap up.

DAY 3: Wednesday 4 March
Promoting disability-positive universities
This will be an interactive all day workshop that will explore ‘promoting more equitable university environments for disabled people in Singaporean Universities’. We will draw on the emerging scholarship of the Singapore and Sheffield teams to share key emerging findings and thinking in relation to promoting more inclusive universities. We will also be inviting colleagues from Singaporean universities to participate in this workshop. 
10 -11: Session 1: What makes an anti-ableist university? by Dan Goodley and Rebecca Lawthom (University of Sheffield)
11 - 12: Session 2: Meng Ee Wong and Kerri Heng (NIE/NTU, Singapore): Making Inclusion Visible: What University Websites Reveal About Disability and DEI in Singapore’s Higher Education (Shares findings from a Singapore-based analysis of university websites)

Workshop - finding examples of anti-ableist practice in Singaporean universities - 24 participants
12 - 1.30: Lunch
1:30–1:45pm — Welcome & Framing
1:45–2:30pm — Small-Group Story Exchange
2:30–3:15pm — Naming Patterns Across Institutions
3:15–3:45pm — From Examples to Principles
3:45–4:00pm — Closing Reflection & Commitment
****

END OF PROGRAMME 

Full papers of presentations

Disability and the university: A case for depathologisation by Dan Goodley and Rebecca Lawthom (University of Sheffield) 
Biographies
Dan Goodley is Professor of Disability Studies and Education and co-director of iHuman at the University of Sheffield. 
Rebecca Lawthom is Professor of Community Psychology and Head of the School of Education at the University of Sheffield.

Introduction
In this paper we critically reflect on our attempts as senior (old) academics in the university to support our disabled researcher colleagues. Following Garland-Thomson (2005) we sit with disability’s exposition of the university. We are interested in the creative potential of disability to revise, inform, reform and revolutionise the ways we go about our day-to-day working lives. We have written about this elsewhere as a process, politics and attitude of depathologisation (Goodley, 2024; Goodley et al, 2025). This approach is inspired by those working in and across critical disability and postcolonial studies. Depathologisation pulls back from the usual stance that disability is a pathological problem (of an individual requiring a psycho-medical solution) and instead asserts that disability is a generative phenomenon (that contests the pathologising tendencies of social institutions such as the university). To depathologise disability is to sit with its productive possibilities. To depathologise the university is to bring disability’s promise to the university to reimagine this institution’s very constitution and character. Disability is not a gift, fetish, fad nor fashion to be exploited by and for the university. Depathologisation calls for cultural change within the university: to substantively rethink how universities orient to disability. 

In this paper we work again with disability’s potential to reinvigorate our work practices. We start this paper inspired by the work of Reeves et al (2025). Their recent paper presents a dynamic analysis of accentuating the social inclusion of adults with learning disabilities by making a case for attending to a sense of belonging, identifying forms of mutuality and building community capacity through an embrace of human diversity. This work propels us to think more deeply about ways we might support researchers within the university; especially disabled colleagues. As Reeves et al (2025) make clear, belonging, community capacity, mutuality and diversity are all contested concepts and, further, disability brings a fresh understanding to these concepts. We take up the baton handed to us by Reeves et al (2025) - and mindful of the contributions of disability theorists such as Titchkosky (2011), Wolbring (2008) and Price (2024) - to further unpack but also narrativise these concepts.

We understand belonging as a longing-to-be: a deeply affective relationship that human beings experience with their surroundings. Following Yuval-Davis’s (2006) seminal work; belonging relates to those times when one’s very being is valued and recognised: we feel like we belong. For Reeves et al (2025: 2) ‘belonging is a felt experience characterized by comfort, safety, value, and respect’. We want to consider how we might work to create this sense of belonging for disabled researchers. Community capacity does not simply refer to a community’s capacity to accept or include others. Community capacity and the sense of belonging are capacious phenomena re/made through the presence of disability. When disability turns up in the university it cannot help but craft new ways of being together in the university (Titchkosky, 2011). Community capacity is a reflection of what all of us can do in the university - disabled and non-disabled - to increase our individual and collective sense of belonging. Community capacity relies upon our interdependencies, our sense of and commitment to building our community and inevitably intersects with the phenomenon of mutuality. Reeves et al (2025) understand mutuality as an experience: of being with others who share our feelings and experiences. Mutuality also relates to giving back after one has been given. Hence, as we have benefitted from the university then it is only right that we give back to the university. We are interested in exploring the ways in which disabled researchers are proactively involved in relationships of mutuality: with their disabled and non-disabled colleagues. Fijn et al (2023) write that anthropologically mutualism is a loaded term carrying with it ideas of forms of giving, receiving and reciprocation often found in intimate human and non-human relations and networks. Mutualism is inherently human.

Working with disability offers opportunities for rethinking the university and the kinds of work we want to do in the university (Spaan et al, 2024). This push and pull of disability is but one way in which Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives have become work of and by the university. Whether or not this work is core or peripheral is debatable and it is important to recognise the EDI backlash in the States and other countries that threatens to sideline and weaponise this work (Hamilton, 2024). Nevertheless, as research leaders committed to EDI and disability politics we embrace our responsibilities to work with colleagues to make the university a more equitable community. What follows in this paper is a critical appraisal of our own attempts with others to support, enable, mentor and scaffold university work contexts. What is required is a suitably rigorous methodology.

Methodology

Our methodology is autobiographical by design; drawing upon stories, anecdotes, academic musings, academic literature, debates, ‘partial happenings, fragmented memories, echoes of conversations, whispers in corridors’ (Sparkes, 2007: 522) gathered together from our working lives across numerous research projects and seven university spaces over the last 25 years. We draw on these empirical resources to present our story of Florence - a fictional composite character - a senior academic struggling with the demands of the university (a pretty ordinary and typical story) and also with the promise of disability (a more original narrative). We take on Sparkes’s (2007) plea to put our hearts and bodies at the centre of our research inquiry. For transparency it is important to recognise our involvement with two live concurrent projects that have given us the impetus, time, drive and excuse to write this paper together (see acknowledgements). Nevertheless, while we currently enjoy working with many brilliant research colleagues across these two projects - many of whom proudly identify as disabled researchers - the stories that we tell in this paper are in no way a direct reflection of these colleagues. It is fair to say that we are able to write the fictional narrative presented below precisely because many disabled researchers have been generous enough to permit us to become part of their university lives and stories. We sincerely hope that the story we present below does justice to some of the collective work that many disabled academics and their non-disabled allies have enacted as they seek to make the university a place that promotes belonging, community and diversity. 

 Our composite narrative also draws on accounts, tales and practices in and - crucially - outside of our working lives. We have written together many times. As life partners we live a life together: often struggling to separate the personal from the political, the family from work; the personal from the political. In writing Florence - mainly in our leisure time - we’ve continued to flatten distinctions between home and work. We are yet to decide if this is a good or bad thing. 

In previous writing we have drawn upon composite narratives and conversations (Goodley et al, 2004; Michalko and Goodley, 2024; Goodley et al, 2025). Storytelling is the primary methodology for all of our research and we are especially interested in the literary and analytical power of fiction. We continue to pursue this approach in this paper to unearth questions and practices in relation to research environments that might enable better working conditions for disabled researchers. We both identify as non-disabled. We are both promoted members of staff and hold the status of full professors. Rebecca is the Head of an academic school and Dan is co-director of an interdisciplinary research institute. Our family histories are deeply intertwined with disability and we have been involved with critical disability studies research and scholarship for nearly three decades now. In writing about Florence we are thinking through some of our own experiences and those that are not our stories but those of friends, colleagues, acquaintances and strangers that we have come to know across the seven universities that we have worked in. We have also been influenced by disability studies writers and activists who have brought their own stories to critical disability studies theorisation and methodological inquiry. Florence is a true composite of slices of life taken from many different folk, imbued with ideas from disability studies literature and shaped into an imagined character who is both flawed and idealistic. 

Fiction introduces particular conceptions and ideas to an interrogation of methodological rigour. We have sought to write Florence’s story in a way that resonates with the contemporary state of the British university. We have tried hard to ensure that Florence, as a character, is interesting enough to keep the readers attention. We have agonised about the inclusion of particular stories as we know many of these are close to home to colleagues that we have worked with. We have therefore shared this story with a number of ex and current colleagues. We know that our story is, at times, parochial: our working class and Welsh backgrounds have informed the narrative construction. And we know we are only academic researchers telling a story; lacking the skill, flair and imagination of the many writers, essayists and novelists that we admire. Perhaps in the final analysis of methodological rigour pertaining to the fictional narrative we need to ask: does this story say something about our subject; disability’s exposition of the university? It is really up to the reader to answer that question. At the centre of Florence’s story is an imagined research project. We are influenced by Viney (2024) who argues that research projects are more than arbitrary containers: they say something about the workings of universities, the social and cultural construction of knowledge and the political economy of the university. A project gives context and also life to a storying of research culture. By centering a fictional research project this permits us to move away from the generalities of ‘the university’ - and the vagueness of ‘the academy’ - to sit with some practicalities of research production. And so, with some trepidation, we hand over to you: Florence and her story.

Brynmawr, Baristas, Barriers and Becomings

A Tuesday afternoon in May 2022 

Spring and central London is picturebook perfect.
The lightest of breezes and a mix of blue skies, sun and rolling clouds.
Florence dodges the tourists; many on their phones, heads down, pulling away at over-full suitcases; their wheels scraping against the pavement surfaces already marked by blackened chewing gum and pigeon poop.
To be fair she is kind of a tourist in her own right: in search of a new experience. A new funded experience to make the strange familiar.

Electric bikes scoot by, catching her off guard.
She’s disoriented. Perspiring on top of menopausal sweat.
She arrives. The map on her phone confirms.
By the entrance of the building.
The funder’s name is emblazoned above. 

Here it is then. Interview day. Only £1 million riding on her performance. 
No pressure.
She takes a deep breath and moves through the revolving doors.
A waiting room. A table. Just as it was detailed in the invitational email she received.
Before her; water. Fizzy and still. Branded in the funder’s logo.

To her right a door. Behind that: the interview panel.
How many times has she imagined this moment?
Who, behind that door, does she have to convince?

She is called into the interview room and met by a sea of faces. Many are bespectacled. There is a fair gender mix. A lot of grey hair. Some male-pattern baldness. Modest postmodern black attire. It is mainly a white crowd. Judging from the accents of those in conversations: received pronunciation. Firmly middle class. Definitely a touch of the Golden Triangle.

Florence’s Provisional North Town University™  feels a long way from here.
So -  just the 12 academic peers (competitors? judges?) to convince.
She takes another deep breath and makes her way to the front table where a laptop sits; her powerpoint slides already projected on the wall behind her.

40 minutes later, that same day

She thanks the hipster chap at the cafe for the coffee.
She clocks his arms. Tattoos. New ink. Nice guns.
Making her way out onto the busy street she asks herself why she picked this dress to wear today. 
She knows she should have chosen something lighter from her admittedly overflowing wardrobe of garments.
The now cloudless sky reveals an unseasonably hot sun (or maybe it's Ms Menopause, again).
She walks by the ‘national’, ‘world’, ‘global’, ‘royal’ associations and institutions. 
Past embassies, grand gardens, Georgian and Victorian buildings. 
She admires their elegant palace fronts.
She recognises the globally renowned names of university departments.

Dead men (and the occasional woman) are memorialized on blue plaques.
This whole place has the smell and feel of the elite and feels a long way from her childhood in Brynmawr, South Wales.
What is she doing here?
Does she really deserve this funding?
Do people like her get the money?

June 2022
Her phone pings. The sound of a teaspoon striking the body of a teacup made of the finest crockery. A sound that used to be cute is now hateful through repetition.

It’s an email. 

That email. The one that she has been obsessively searching for over the last month. Refreshing and refreshing the email on her phone. Hour after hour. From morning to night. Thumb pulled down from the top to the bottom of the screen.

She opens the email and reads.
‘Dear Professor Evans, we are delighted to confirm that ..’
Euphoria.
She got the funding.

She realises that, for the last minute or so, she has been doing the macarena dance in the shared office space of her provincial university’s building. The few colleagues that are in today look up, appear to shrug and then get back to their own computer screen time. 

No one likes a show-off. 
Few appreciate the macarena.

March 2023

Disability can arrive in many ways in the university. 
Sometimes it arrives in a flourish.
Like today. 

The new project is live. A new website. A tagline: rethinking the university through disability. Florence feels a sense of overwhelming pride as she stands before a huge university foyer screen that announces her project. She fiddles with her new art house necklace bought from a makerspace stall at a trendy market in Manchester. There are so many makers now; a legacy of the pandemic and all that spare time while many feared for their lives and some were judged to be disposable by the NHS.
The necklace was a present to herself: for getting through the interview in London. For getting through Covid. Today the necklace fits even better.

How might she help initiate disability’s arrival in her university? 
She wonders how she might cultivate conversations that start with the idea that disability is less of a problem to solve and more of a resource to rethink how we might do things better together.

She remembers when she was typing the text for the slide that now appears before - in human size on the foyer screen -  in response to a request from the university’s marketing team - that her computer’s autocorrect wanted to change ‘disability’ to ‘the disabled’. 

Right there is the problem: the objectification of disability.
Does her work threaten to do the same?

These thoughts will have to wait; or at least settle for a while as there is work to be done. Job descriptions to write, finance meetings to hold, human resources’ advice to garner, contracts to draft for non-academic partners, online training courses to complete including ‘neurodiversity training online module’. New financial regulations are to be poured over. Changes to invoicing, requisition, new supplier registrations, tax considerations, questions about VAT, overheads, indirect costs, direct costs, funder regulations, virement …

It's already 3pm Friday.

August 2024
The conference room is an impressive room located in the university’s business school.
A long rectangular table is accompanied by faux leather seats that ergonomically bend backwards and forwards in concert with the user’s movement.
The room is walled by frosted glass windows: giving a sense of privacy and self-importance 
The final interviewee has just left the room.
Members of the interview panel study their notes.
Florence surveys the room.

The panel is constituted by four academic colleagues and four researchers from local self-advocacy groups: experienced activists and researchers with learning disabilities. 
Florence has had the pleasure of working with these self-advocacy groups for three decades. Self-advocacy groups have for years constituted a movement run by and for people with learning disabilities. 

The movement remains strong. It was not broken by Covid-19.
The panel has interviewed six people today for the post of researcher. 

Joyce, an experienced researcher from the local self-advocacy group, is collating her views with her supporter Jonny.
Florence, kicks off the discussion. She reminds them of the names of each interviewee and seeks responses from around the table.
Joyce ploughs straight in. 
‘I really liked the first interviewee Matthew. His presentation made sense to me. His words and pictures on their slides didn’t have any jargon. Also, did you notice he spoke to me and my mates not to you Flo? He seemed kind’.

Florence smiles and nods in agreement.
She reminds herself that her academic colleague Dai is blind.
Why does she need to remind herself? She’s worked closely with Dai for over a decade.
‘Dai, sorry, I’m nodding in agreement with Joyce’. Florence explains.
Dai nods back acknowledging Florence’s belated explanation.
Florence moves to the other members of the interview panel to garner their feedback.

Early November 2025
An online meeting.
‘Still no news on Access to Work’. Matthew declares making ready use of his Alternative and Augmentative Communication technology. 
Florence surveys Matthew’s status on the screen. His body literally captures an overwhelming state of exasperation. It exists in direct opposition to the bold colouring of his home office which frames him. There are neon greens and oranges. Framed gig posters of dance and rave events from the 90s.

The two of them are from the same era. 
Florence lost nights and mornings in underground raves.

Matthew, a wheelchair user, would have struggled to access the nightclubs with many being located down many stairs to their dingy locations.
Their career trajectories have also taken very different turns.
The university was no place for a disabled researcher before the turn of the 21st Century.
Florence wonders if the university remains out of bounds to her disabled colleagues.

Florence wants to give Matthew a virtual hug. She enlarges the screen size on their meeting. Somehow this feels like a spatial recognition of the significance of what they are talking about. 
‘I am sorry Matthew. Shall I get in touch with Peter again?
Peter is the one Access to Work specialist colleague in the university. His workload is frankly unworkable.
‘With respect, Florence, I don’t need apologies. I need to see change’.

Matthew has been working on the project for 10 months now. While the Access to Work processes were put in on the day that he accepted the position (so 13 months ago today) he still has not had confirmation of a paid personal assistant. 

Matthew has continued to do this work, without formal support. 
He has completed an ethics application. Carried out a literature review. Designed the research methods. Drafted the participant information sheets and consent forms. All of this done without PA support that would have made the job smoother, less exhausting, less demanding. All of this work done in the face of a disjuncture between inaccessible university systems and their failure to fit with Matthew’s support needs. 
‘I want to thank you for doing this work for us Matthew: we don’t deserve it. And you did not have to do it’. Florence flounders.
‘I have my own professional status to think of as well’, Matthew replies. ‘Thank you for your support though Florence’.
‘It's the least I can do. Please call me Flo’.
The call ends. 

[two days later]

This will be an accessible event.
This has to be an accessible event.
This is a showcase launch event of the project.
Can a hybrid event - especially an academic event- ever be an accessible event? 
Florence scribbles a note on her tablet: ‘Is the university fit for purpose to even allow us to consider the very idea of access?’
When was the last time anyone experienced a hybrid event as, well, an event?
Here in the university: this is a context where we now, apparently, do ‘face-to-face’.
To be totally honest with herself; Florence is nervous about the face-to-face. She spends all her time online these days in meetings. Walking into the university today she came across the follow sprayed in yellow paint on the wall of the Turkish Baths building:
Familiarity will be what overwhelms us.

Perhaps this explains her nerves.
Florence surveys the seminar room.

Speakers and personal assistants have been booked and are in place.
Travel and accommodation finalised.
Participants arrive online and offline.
Dietary requirements and allergies have been collated and shared with the university’s in-house caterers.

Screens are on.
BSL interpreters are in situ. No participant nor speaker has requested them. But their presence makes a powerful point: Deaf and deaf people are welcome here.

The interpreters are frustrated that they have no one to interpret for. 
Their complaints fall upon hearing ears only. 
Florence notes that face masks are being worn by some of those in the room. Covid lurks somewhere in these lecture rooms, corridors and crowded student coffee bars. 

Suddenly, the startling and horrible noise of a fire alarm. There is no test today. She knows this. She had checked that with the porter Jim. 
Two participants cover their ears.
Jim appears just in time in the seminar room. 

‘Y’all right Flo? Jim asks, noting Florence is visibly worried.
‘Now, me duck, we need everyone out’.
Florence is a trained fire marshall. Sadly, her Hi-Viz jacket is upstairs on level 3. 
Florence and three of her colleagues help facilitate the movement of 28 people. Some are visibly distressed by the noise. 

There are moments of connection. 
An arm to support the balance of another. 
A door is opened and kept open to allow smooth access. 
Comforting smiles and touches. 

‘Thank God I booked the ground floor’, Florence tells Jim.
‘Yeah: no refuge area by the bins for some of these folk today’, Jim replies.
Some three minutes later and the face-to-facers of the event gather together outside of the building.

An inauspicious start to the project.

Meanwhile, in the panicked movement from lecture room to assembly point, no one has told the 73 online participants spanning nine countries why the room has been cleared. Each appears on the projected screen. Each framed by a separate square. Some have cameras on. Others do not. Some are visible on the projected screen in the seminar room. All occupy a temporary muted world of confusion and uncertainty.

Florence finds out later that it is a false alarm. 
Someone burnt their morning toast.

Late November 2025

Mid-morning.
Another event. 
This time: online only. 
What can possibly go wrong? 

Three presenters share their work. Ten-minute presentations. All have kept to time. There is a five-minute access break before the Q&A. The presenters give their own perspectives upon disability studies and its impact upon their disciplines. One speaks of working in rehabilitation studies. Another reflects on social work. The last has some very critical things to say about psychology. 

Florence starts to relax. Is this transdisciplinarity at its best? Where disability really does some serious disruptive work to established disciplinary ways of thinking.
She risks entering a warm fug of smugness. 
She downs her coffee.
She allows her cat to jump up onto her lap. 
Big mistake. 

The cat has either been playing in mud or worse.
And then: a rupture. 

Clearly, she has been over-relaxing.
Comments start to file through on the Q&A.

Participant 31: I am not sure if disability studies engages with neurodivergence?
Participant 9: Yes, I was going to ask the same thing. I think there is neurodiversity studies and disability studies but they are different things.

Participant 13: I am neurodivergent - but this does not mean I am disabled so I’m not sure what disability studies can offer me.
Participant 43: Thanks for these comments. I did want to raise an access question: I appreciate the 1¼ hours timing but I think this is still too long for neurodiverse folk like myself. 

Participant 13: yep. That kind of backs up my point. Neurodiversity and disability are very different.
[Private comment to Florence]
Moderator 4: Flo’, BIG questions. Do you want to answer them?

[2 hours later]

That phone ping again.
An email. 
A message from Dai: still one of Florence’s oldest and most trusted friends in the department.
Subject heading: Nightmare???????
‘Flo. Peter from Access to Work has taken Voluntary Severance. No replacement organised so far. Not sure if you should tell your colleague Matthew. Coffee? Chat?’
One wheel forward. 
Another wheel back.

[6 hours later]

Florence drains her glass.
She turns to her partner Dizzy and gives him those eyes: more wine. 
He smiles, tuts - gently teasing her - and wanders off to find a refill. The toils of the sober designated driver.
This party all the way over in the leafy suburbs of Liverpool is the last thing she needed after the busy work of this last week. 
Still, she has no choice. Lizzie - her oldest university friend -  is celebrating her 50th Birthday. 

She admires the granite tops of the newly refurbished kitchen, the Tom Dixon melt lights and the shiny new duck egg blue Smeg refrigerator. 
She asks herself not for the first time ‘why did she marry another poor academic rather than a corporate lawyer like Lizzie?’
As if reading her mind Lizzie plus her lawyer husband approach. 

They look annoyingly amazing. 
Head to toe in designer gear no doubt procured from Manchester’s Selfridges. 
Florence smooths down the bottom of her dress with her hand; reminding herself that a £10 bargain from the Zara sales is still Zara.
‘Flo, Lizzie tells me you have a big disability project?’ The lawyer asks though not clearly not waiting for nor needing a response. 

He is drunk. 
Sloshing red wine stains cover his white shirt.
He strokes his scruffy blond moptop from his eyes.

‘Isn’t everyone disabled or neuro-y - or whatever the trendy term is - these days? I mean how is this new Labour-lite government going to cope with the welfare bill. We cannot all be disabled, can we?’
Dizzy returns with her full glass of white wine. 

Just in time.
Dizzy turns to address the boorish boring lawyer. ‘So, Boris, I see you’ve still not managed to get over Nottingham Forest hammering Liverpool two seasons on the trot?
For once.
Football is a saviour.

Analysis
In previous work (Goodley, Lawthom and Liddiard, 2025) we have started to trace the negative impacts of university bureaucracy on the day-to-day runnings of a project. It is safe to say that Florence’s story could also have been a tale focused upon administration. Instead, we have tried to give life to a fictional research project in action and to reveal some of its relational and human qualities. Below, we explore five themes through which disability provides an exposition of the university’s system, institutional workings and cultural practices, with a specific focus on research culture and the support of researchers. Our approach draws upon some of the foundational ideas of thematic analysis (developed by Braun and Clarke, 2006) and the analytical ethnographic ideas developed by Snow and colleagues (2004) while also drawing on literature from critical analyses of the university, disability and neurodivergence. We implicitly revisit the key concepts of belonging, community capacity, diversity and mutuality and we seek to also provoke in our analysis.

Acknowledging that systemic inequalities are baked into the funding landscape of British universities
Our story begins with existential angst as our character reflects upon her place at the funding table. We are also drawn to the elongated nature of research funding from application to eventual award. There is a full one year period of time between grant approval and the start of the grant. The narrative is conspicuous by its absence of research failure. In writing Florence we could have drawn upon many of our own experiences of disappointment when we have failed to land a grant (at least on 20 occasions in total). Instead, we have decided to sit with the success of grant capture; a practice now framed as a performative necessity of academic career success (at least in the UK). We know though that deep systemic inequalities are baked into the funding landscape of British universities. 

Competition for funding does not take place on a level playing field. 

The Golden Triangle is a term that was initially used to describe the grouping of elite, highly-funded universities located in the southern English cities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London (Wise, 2017). And while there is some evidence to suggest research funding is more dispersed across the UK, the Golden Triangle continues to still benefit from focused and discretionary funding and endowments (see Wise, 2017; Grove, 2025). There is also clear evidence that applicants from working class, black and disability backgrounds struggle to break through the various glass ceilings, broken pipelines and barriers to progression associated with grant success (e.g. CRAC, 2020; Crew, 2021;  EPSRC, 2023). Even when invited into the funding machine, as Florence describes, applicants from marginalised communities might feel that they do not belong. 

Contemplating how disability lands in the university
Disability arrives in Florence’s university in many ways; especially through her funded research project. As old academics we find that the contemporary university is more responsive to disability than it was two decades ago. We deeply appreciate those colleagues who are now more likely to proudly identify as disabled, chronically ill and neurodivergent. Disability’s naming as a protected characteristic demands an EDI response. Our story captures various processes, policies and practices that are being driven by disability including inclusive job recruitment, personal assistance and support systems, accessible face to face and online events. And yet, questions still arise for us in relation to how disability lands in the university. 

Our worry is that disability still tends to be treated as an individual problem that inconveniences the university. Too often the university fails to anticipate the presence of disability. Disability lands in the disability almost as if it were a surprise. And this sense of surprise and lack of anticipation suggests the university community fails to have the community capacities that set necessary conditions for a sense of belonging on the part of our disabled colleagues.

The continued ideological constitution of disability as an individual problem lets the university off the hook. And like all individual problems these tend to be treated with individual solutions. Disability continues to be individualised and as the founding parents of British disability studies such as Mike Oliver (1990) and Carol Thomas (2007) told us many years ago - the individualisation of disability is itself a problem because it fails to ask questions of society and culture. We understand one of our responsibilities as senior researchers to be social agitators; pushing our colleagues to embrace disability as a socio-cultural phenomenon. When disability becomes something owned by an individual then this risks individualising the very essence of disability. 

Rather than asking how we might respond to an individual’s disability we need to collectively rethink disability's arrival in the university. 

We need to build a university community with the capacities to engage immediately, proactively and positively with the contributions of disabled researchers. 

Problematising welcoming disabled researchers into the academy
We recognise the problem with the very idea of being welcoming into the university. Many of us have experiences of being welcomed into places that were not designed for us. A common weekend pastime for families in the UK is to visit stately homes - either presently or historically owned by members of the monarchy, aristocracy, landed gentry and now the newly monied - and to pay for this privilege. These institutions are sold to visitors as an opportunity to be welcomed into spaces that were hitherto denied from them. And these grand buildings have often been built on long histories of empire and class privilege. Welcoming disabled researchers into the academy is all well and good but if those university systems remain unchanged then these researchers can only ever expect to be temporary guests of or visitor to the university; they will fail to belong (Yuval-Davis, 2006).

We need to challenge this institutional model of invitation. Rather than to welcome one into the university we need to make the university welcoming through creating a sense of belonging (Reeves et al, 2025).

Hence, for example, making the recruitment process of disabled researchers a more equitable process - through the presence of disabled colleagues - moves beyond a gesture of being welcomed asserts from the very outset that potential participation is also associated with cultural change within the university. When university events start with questions and considerations of disability access then disability is doing the inviting: participants are being asked to take part in online or face-to-face events that raise expectations about how we can act and support one another. 

Critically examining the nature of support in the university

Throughout the story we find connection and mutuality between disabled and non-disabled people in the seeking of moments of mutual connection. Institutional recognitions of support - and the associated systems of support that come with it - can be disappointing and debilitating. One formalised form of support - Access to Work (AtW) - has been crucial to supporting disabled people into work. Through the AtW scheme, universities can apply for grants to help support disabled people into the workplace through the funding of equipment, personal assistance, travel and specialist equipment. 

At the time of writing this, the AtW scheme is in crisis: facing government cuts, a backlog of applications and a lack of institutional support and knowledge (Rafiq and Fox, 2025). 

When disabled researchers rely upon AtW to carry out their jobs - and this support is cut-off from them - then this can undermine existing networks of support that have taken many months to embed in the day to day realities of work in the academy. One of our colleagues - Dr Armineh Soorenian - is currently leading a subgroup of the UK’s National Association of Disabled Staff Network to critically uncover the challenges posed by the current AtW crisis. Disabled people are often forced into forms of entrepreneurship that sit in counter-distinction to societal expectations that do not expect disabled people to succeed (Lorenzo et al, 2007). Career progression will always be impacted by complex interactions of class, race, sexuality and gender (Shah, 2005). All of us in the academy grapple with ableism but disabled people also have to tackle disablism within the academy. The question of support is a troubling one; especially in the academy where narratives of individual quest and achievement are valued and support systems are bureaucratised.

There is an urgent and immediate need for universities to address their relationship with support - whether this be through an engagement with formalised processes such as AtW or through an anticipatory commitment that demands involvement from all members of the university. We know that many elements of support happen in the everyday, mundane though essential relationships between disabled and non-disabled colleagues. And we know that relational support is essential in fostering a sense of belonging in our communities (Reeves et al, 2025). Senior academics like ourselves clearly have a responsibility to ensure that we demystify support: to remind us of all of our interdependencies and to build forms of solidarity with one another. 

Embracing contemporary expressions of disability
Over the last decade, neurodivergence and neurodiversity have emerged as powerful expressions of disability and difference. We acknowledge the personal and political power of neurodivergence as a desired identity for many people who proudly associate with it whilst also recognising that diagnosis and labelling might not be a matter of choice for others. Neurodivergent theorists have called for a complete transformation of societal institutions, social theory and political activism through the politics and process of neuroqueering (Shannon, 2020: Walker, 2021). For Stenning and Rosqvist (2021), neurodiversity permits people to positively self-identify and contest society’s tendency to fit with the desires of neurotypical folk. For Mcgee (2012: 12) neurodiversity politically names individual rights and celebrates a diversity of people; extending discussions from the disability rights movement (which historically was dominated by folk with physical, sensory and cognitive impairments) into ‘the realm of cognitive, affective and perceptual difference’. As Botha et al (2024) recognise neurodivergent politics have a long history of contesting normative ideas and ideals associated with non-disabled ontologies as being the productive ontologies of contemporary society. 

Embracing a neuroqueering perspective has the potential to work with disability studies critique: to deconstruct normative assumptions associated with the good life that are too often assumed to be aligned to a neurotypical form of citizenship and personhood (Chapman and Carel, 2022). Neurodivergent politics embolden in many ways disability activism’s generative potential to reimagine the very elements of the human condition that we value and support together.

Writers such as Runswick-Cole (2014) and Jones and Orchard (2024) ask us to consider the potential costs to other disabled people that may arise from the growing proliferation of neurodiversity discourse. As Runswick-Cole (2014) puts it, the growing drive for neurodivergent identities and politics risks creating an ‘us and them’ binary - not only between neurodivergent and neurotypical folk - but also between neurodivergent and disabled people. It is possible to read some of the comments from the online symposium presented above as emblematic of some of these tensions identified by Runswick-Cole. Jones and Orchard (2024) observe that just as neurodivergence becomes ever-more present, reported and used within the university, many other disabled people remain fundamentally excluded from the academy.  Neurodiversity and disability - as distinct categories - are at risk of being differentially culturally conceptualised and politically mobilised in the current social, cultural and political climate (Jones and Orchard, 2024: 456). 

We do not read this commentary as a criticism of neurodivergent comrades whose own entry-points into - and exit-points out of - the university reflect deeply entangled histories and contemporary practices of disablism. Instead, we are interested in the ways in which neurodivergence’s iteration, categorisation or deployment might write-over rather than connect with disability. There is a risk here of demoting disability at the very same time that neurodivergence’s qualities are celebrated. When neurodiversity is separated from disability (as being different or not like disability), then this potentially renders ‘neurodiversity particularly susceptible’ to being ‘co-opt[ed] by institutions whose fundamental ableism and proximity to structural power deepen the marginalisation of disability already latent within neurodiversity itself’ (Jones and Orchard, 2024: 463). Meanwhile disabled people risk being left behind - as disabled, dependent and lacking - as problems that universities struggle to solve.

It is important to address these potential conflicts between neurodivergence and disability politics but we need to do this work whilst also recognising the growing societal skepticism around the naming, diagnosis and identification of neurodivergence (Krazinski, 2023; Rippon, 2025). Rather than questioning the existence and reality of neurodivergence we would argue that more energy should be put into fostering mutual alliances and solidaristic relationships between neurodivergent and disabled colleagues as they challenge together neurotypical and ableist conditions of the university and wider society. 

Conclusion 

In writing this paper we acknowledge that we are the university and we can collectively work together to make sure that disabled researchers are a central part of our communities. Florence’s story reminds us that universities, research and project work are all founded upon networks of relationships. Any understanding of relationality should bring with it considerations of mutuality: our modes of existence with one another (see Fijn, Gressier & Kavesh (2023: 2). And mutualism requires community. As stated earlier, Reeves et al (2025) understand mutuality as an experience of being with others who share our feelings and experiences; of giving back after one has been given. One should not confuse mutuality with an equalised relationship between one and another; with each giving and receiving the same. Some of us are in positions of power which might mean that we are more capable of giving while others are engaged with the daily task of survival.  Florence’s story encourages us to identify a number of urgent significant needs associated with enhancing community capacities of and within the university.  

First, we need to recognise the responsibilities of old folk like ourselves to create forms of support for disabled researchers where disability lands as an opportunity rather than as a problem. 

Second, we need to consider how we bring together our various communities of disabled, chronically ill and neurodivergent folk and non-disabled allies in ways that recognise specificity and difference whilst contributing to a wider common politics of disability. 

Third, we need to work against those assumptions and practices that represent our disabled colleagues as failing to meet the imperatives of ability. 

Fourth, we need to sit with the different access frictions and identity positions where disability is and is not embraced.  

Fifth, we need to create forms of solidarity that do not denigrate our colleagues nor create factions that blunt our political tools.  

Sixth, we need to remind ourselves also that disability has always been contested and is always expanding because it is ‘a network of multiple positions, constructed in and through many chains of past and present signification’ (Corker, 2000: 306). We must embrace new expressions of disability and commit to solidaristic relationships across our disability communities. 
 

Funding Statement

This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust [226705/z/22/z]. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Acknowledgements

We want to acknowledge and thank the Wellcome Trust for their funding of Disability Matters [226705/z/22/z] and the Economic and Social Research Council for funding grant Humanising the Healthcare Experiences of People with Learning Disabilities and/or Autism (ES/W003406/). Each grant has created the ideal conditions for us to be able to find space and time to critically reflect on the ideas in this paper. We also would like to thank Bojana Daw Srdanovic, Ruby Goodley and Armineh Soorenian for critical feedback on this paper.

References
Botha, M., Chapman, R., Giwa Onaiwu, M., Kapp, S. K., Stannard Ashley, A., & Walker, N. (2024). The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241237871

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Careers Research & Advisory Centre (2020) Qualitative research on barriers to progression of disabled scientists. Vitae. https://vitae.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Qualitative-research-on-barriers-to-progression-of-disabled-scientists.pdf 

Chapman, R., & Carel, H. (2022). Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life. Journal of Social Philosophy, 53, 614–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12456

Corker, M. (2000). A View from the Bridge: An lnterdisciplinarian's Overview of the Social Relations of Disability Studies. Disability Studies Quarterly, 19 (4), 302-310.

Crew, T. (2021). Navigating Academia as a Working-Class Academic. Journal of Working-Class Studies, 6(2), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.13001/jwcs.v6i2

EPSRC (2013). Ethnicity and race inequity in our portfolio: Findings of our community engagement and actions for change. https://www.ukri.org/publications/ethnicity-and-race-inequity-in-our-portfolio/ethnicity-and-race-inequity-in-our-portfolio-findings-of-our-community-engagement-and-actions-for-change/

Fijn, Natasha & Gressier, Catie & Kavesh, Muhammad. (2023). Anthropology of mutualism. Anthropology Today. 39. 1-2. 10.1111/1467-8322.12780

Garland‐Thomson, R. (2005). Feminist Disability Studies. Signs, 30(2), 1557–1587. https://doi.org/10.1086/423352

Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Clough, P. and Moore, M. (2004) Researching Life Stories. London: Routledge.

Goodley, D. (2024). Depathologising the university. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 33(3), 1001–1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2024.2316007

Goodley D, Liddiard K & Lawthom R (2025) The depathologising university. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 27(1), 120-133.

Grove, J. (2025). Golden triangle shines as UK names Global Talent Fund recipients. Times Higher Education, 18 July 2025. Jhttps://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/golden-triangle-shines-uk-names-global-talent-fund-recipients 

Hamilton, D. (2024). The diversity backlash is underway. Here’s how to resist it. World Economic Forum, 11th October, 2024. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/10/the-diversity-backlash-here-s-how-to-resist-it/ 

Jones, E. K. and Orchard, V. (2024) ‘Neurodiversity and disability: what is at stake?’, Medical humanities, 50(3), pp. 456–465. doi: 10.1136/medhum-2023-012808.

Krazinski, M. (2023) ‘Celebrating Neurodivergence amid Social Injustice’, Hypatia, 38(4), pp. 726–745. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2023.7

Lorenzo, T., van Niekerk, L., & Mdlokolo, P. (2007). Economic empowerment and black disabled entrepreneurs: Negotiating partnerships in Cape Town, South Africa. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29(5), 429–436. https://doi-org.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/09638280600841190

Mcgee, M. (2012). Neurodiversity. Contexts, 11(3), 12-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504212456175 (Original work published 2012)

Michalko, R. and Goodley, D. with Smokie. (2023). Letters with Smokie: Blindness and More-than-Human Relations. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press.

Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London: Macmillan.

Price, Margaret. 2024. Crip Spacetime: Access, Failure, and Accountability in Academic Life. Durham, North Carolina, USA: Duke University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478059370   

Rafiq, M. and Fox, N. (2025). 'I created a successful business thanks to a disability grant - but cuts will sink it', BBC News, 17 September 2025 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyl90ry2j7o 

Reeves, P., McConnell, D., & Phelan, S. K. (2025). Belonging involves mutuality, agency, and acceptance: An ethnographic exploration of belonging with adults labelled with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 0(0). https://doi-org.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/17446295251344355

Rippon, G. (2025). Why the antagonism over the rise in autism diagnoses? It’s actually good news. The Guardian, 21st July 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/21/rise-autism-diagnoses-neurodiversity

Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). ‘Us’ and ‘them’: The limits and possibilities of a ‘politics of neurodiversity’ in neoliberal times. Disability & Society, 29(7), 1117–1129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.910107

Spaan, N., Trigt, P. W. van, & Schippers, A. (2024). Integration of a disability lens as prerequisite for inclusive higher education. The European Journal Of Inclusive Education, 3(1). doi:10.7146/ejie.v3i1.137271 

Sparkes, A. (2007). Embodiment, academics, and the audit culture: a story seeking consideration Sparkes, Qualitative research, 7 (4), 521-550

Shah, S. (2005). Career Success of Disabled High-Flyers, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2005. 

Shannon, D. B. (2020). Neuroqueering Noise: Beyond ‘mere inclusion’ in a neurodiverse early childhood classroom. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies. 9(5). 488 - 514.

Snow, D.A., C. Morrill, and L. Anderson. 2004. Elaborating analytic ethnography: Linking fieldwork and theory. Ethnography 4, no. 2: 153–5.

Stenning, A, and  Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H.  (2021). “Neurodiversity Studies: Mapping Out Possibilities of a New Critical Paradigm.” Disability & Society 36(9): 1532–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021. 1919503 

Thomas, C. (2007). Sociologies of Disability and Illness. Contested Ideas in Disability Studies and Medical Sociology. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.  

Titchkosky, T. (2011). The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Viney, W. (2024). What is a medical humanities project? The Polyphony, 18th June 2024, https://thepolyphony.org/2024/06/18/med-hums-projects/

Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Fort Worth Texas: Autonomous Press.

Wise, D. (2017). Bidwells guide to the Golden Triangle, comprising the elite UK universities in London, Oxford, and Cambridge.Accessed on 19th September 2025: https://www.bidwells.co.uk/insights-reports-events/what-is-the-golden-triangle/ 

Wolbring, Gregor. 2008. “The Politics of Ableism.” Development 51(2): 252–258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2008.17   

Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40 (3), 197-214.

The Inclusion Roadmap: Mapping Practical Strategies for Job Seekers in Singapore by Sonali Biswas, Lynn Tan, Sandy Lim, and Angeline Lim 

Introduction: Singapore’s Disability Employment Landscape and the Employment Gap

Despite decades of disability-related legislation internationally, a significant employment “participation gap” persists for persons with disabilities (PWDs). It is estimated that only 30% of PWDs participate in the labour market globally (Ananian and Dellaferrera, 2024). Even when they successfully navigate the hiring process, PWDs are more likely to face underemployment, involuntary part-time status, and lower salaries (Brault, 2012; Konrad et al., 2013).

The situation in Singapore mirrors the international landscape. Only 33.6% of Singaporean PWDs aged 15-64 are employed, compared with 68.2% of the general population (Ministry of Manpower, 2025). Job retention for PWDs has also been of concern. For example, PWDs interviewed by the Disabled People’s Association in Singapore have suggested that certain government job placement programs, such as the Place-and-Train (PnT) programme in which PWDs are matched to a 6–12-month placement and receive government-subsidised wages, do not promote long-term employment (Disabled People’s Association, 2024). Some PWDs who have participated in this programme have expressed that they feel trapped in repeating cycles of new placements with no opportunities for progression (DPA 2024), with 23% of PnT programme participants being unable to retain their jobs 6 months after program completion (Ministry of Social and Family Development, 2025). Amidst these challenges, our investigation identifies strategies that employed PWDs adopt to set themselves up for success in local employment contexts. 

The Current Paper: Investigating Practical Strategies

Challenges in understanding how PWDs can maintain open employment are not unique to Singapore, as few comprehensive models of sustainable employment for PWDs exist internationally (Manokara, 2021). Uncovering PWDs’ strategies to gain and maintain employment not only reveals how they may actively shape their work environments to facilitate employment (Stone and Collela, 1996), but may provide Singaporean employers with actionable insights (Kulkarni and Gopakumar, 2014). 

In our investigation, we have conducted five pilot semi-structured interviews with PWDs in Singapore, to understand their employment journeys. Our target sample includes PWDs with one or more of the four types of disabilities officially recognised in Singapore – physical, sensory (visual or hearing impairments), intellectual disabilities, or autism. Within this paper, we discuss the specific strategies individuals can use to improve hiring and retention outcomes for PWDs, using insights extracted from our interview data which are supplemented by the existing literature. Such research reveals that for PWDs, employability does not simply reflect technical skill, but is a strategic endeavour involving careful information management, proactive de-mystification of disability, and resilient attitudes and coping mechanisms. We will additionally cover whether strategies used by PWDs differ in Singapore, compared to the international context.

Enhancing Individual Employability and Retention: PwDs’ Strategies for Success

Strategic disclosure, self-advocacy and negotiation of expectations – Within our study, individuals with both visible and invisible disabilities suggested that timing the disclosure of their disability, typically after receiving interviews or offers, was key to gaining employment. Interviewees explained that late disclosure minimised the chances of premature rejection, due to hiring managers’ potential stereotypes of their capabilities. Some based this on experience, with one participant stating that they received fewer offers when they disclosed their disability in interviews. However, all participants emphasized the necessity of disclosing to supervisors and managers before starting their role, to allow for discussion and negotiation of job expectations and accommodations. One participant even linked their lack of timely disclosure directly to job loss, as it led to mismatches in expected duties with their manager. The importance of strategic disclosure is also reflected across the literature. For example, while not a direct measure of disclosure behaviour, one meta-analysis found that PWDs who perceived disclosure as unimportant were 15.4% less likely to maintain their employment on average (Kudla et al., 2024). Similarly, in another meta-analysis of experiments where participants evaluated a fictional employee with disabilities, disclosure negatively affected their hiring and performance expectations evaluations (made before an employee joins a company), but positively impacted performance evaluations of these PWD targets (Ren et al., 2008). This finding reinforces the differential impacts of disclosure at different stages of the employment cycle. 

Strategic disclosure also facilitated self-advocacy and active negotiation of job-related expectations. For example, interviewees suggested that honestly disclosing potential job-related challenges, while proactively suggesting supports employers could provide to mitigate these, would establish and reassure employers of their capability. Similar themes of self-advocacy and pre-emptively addressing concerns have emerged in other qualitative studies of PWDs who have achieved stable employment (Jans et al., 2012). Other interviewees even spoke of practical methods PWDs could use to demonstrate their technical capabilities, such as providing video recordings or other evidence of their work and skills - a unique strategy not yet discussed in the literature.

Strategic use of social capital for job sourcing – Interviewees often sought suitable jobs through social connections. Leveraging past professional connections allowed one interviewee with an acquired disability to land a job relatively quickly, as their ex-manager could vouch for their competence and counter any stereotypes of their capabilities which may have otherwise emerged. This is consistent with findings from the US, where one nationally representative survey of PWDs found that 62.4% of respondents sought family and friends’ support to look for employment (Sundar et al., 2018). 

Adopting realistic expectations - A few interviewees implied that they learnt to adjust their work expectations, such as by accepting lower pay, or letting go of previous career ambitions, to adopt a pragmatic approach to gain employment. For example, one interviewee on the autism spectrum suggested that they redirected their career aspirations in counselling or social work towards advocating for disability empowerment through research and policy roles, which require less face-to-face interaction. Another interviewee implied that letting go of their former expectations of holding more prestigious roles, after acquiring a disability, allowed them to successfully pursue and gain new employment opportunities that did not match their previous expectations.  Similar views were espoused by younger Singaporeans with mental health conditions in a qualitative study of factors affecting their employment (Subramaniam et al., 2022). PWDs in other countries such as the US also spoke of the need for realistic job expectations based on one’s knowledge of how their disability affected their capabilities (Jan et al., 2012). We hence derive that effectively gaining employment appears to require realistic job expectation management. 

Resilient coping strategies in job-search and during employment – While not a direct strategy for gaining or maintaining employment, participants’ internal coping resources helped them sustain efforts despite long job searches and workplace challenges. For interviewees, adopting optimistic mindsets, as well as building support ecosystems of family members, friends and job coaches, aided them in persevering despite facing work challenges that non-disabled people did not have. This is consistent with the findings of meta-ethnographies, suggesting that positive coping strategies are associated with motivation to maintain employment for PWDs (Holland and Clayton, 2019). Other research from Singapore further corroborates the use of internal coping practices, such as positive thinking and acceptance of one’s condition, as methods by which Singaporeans with mental health conditions cope with the demands of their work (Subramaniam et al., 2022).  

Some interviewees also adopted an attitude of grit, telling themselves to “suck it up” and endure despite hardship in finding work. One interviewee emphasized the importance of “showing others their might, not their plight”, suggesting that PWDs should focus on demonstrating their resilience and to avoid a victim mentality or expecting handouts. PWDs in India (Bhaskar et al., 2023) and the US (Jan et al., 2012), as well as Singaporeans with mental health conditions (Subramaniam et al., 2022) have been shown to adopt similar “survivor mindsets”. While seen across PWDs internationally, such attitudes may also be reflective of the high value Singaporeans place on hard work and meritocracy (Mathews et al., 2021), leading PWDs themselves to value employment enough to bear the associated challenges. 

Values-based advocacy – For some interviewees, coping extended beyond managing one’s internal states into actively shaping workplace perceptions to foster inclusivity for all PWDs. For example, one participant described instances in which colleagues expressed misconceptions about PWDs’ capabilities, or implied that employers ‘did them a favour’ by providing workplace accommodations. In the face of this, the individual felt motivated to speak up and “respectfully” correct their colleagues, to prevent harmful stereotypes from persisting. Such advocacy-based strategies have been found to be used by Indian PWDs as well (Kulkarni and Gopakumar, 2014). 

While advocacy-based strategies emerged in this sample, it should be noted that several interviewees were recruited because their advocacy roles made them more visible and accessible for interviews. As such, the salience of this strategy in our findings may be overstated and not representative of all PWDs. As we progress with our data collection, we will seek to capture more diverse views, including those of non-advocates.

Implications and Conclusions

Overall, it seems that PWDs engage in a diverse range of strategies to gain and maintain employment, from strategic job searching and well-timed disclosure of information about their disability, to developing positive attitudes to cope with the heightened job-related demands for PWDs. While many of these strategies seem to be used internationally, there is some evidence to suggest that the job expectation adjustment and survivor mindset adopted by our interviewees is representative of the pragmatic, meritocratic values and policy orientation towards disability rights in Singapore (Mathews et al., 2021; Wong, 2025). 

Exploring PWDs’ strategies to achieve success in employment is a useful endeavour that may better inform policymakers of how to empower Singaporean PWDs more widely to achieve success, by supporting them in specific areas such as self-advocacy, disclosure, and job search. However, while PWDs can utilize tactical disclosure and "ability-first" narratives to increase their employability, the burden of change must be shared by organizations. Employers must move from a compliance-based mindset to one that recognizes PWDs as one of the largest underutilized labour pools (Schur et al., 2014). Only through a combination of the individual empowerment of PWDs, and the promotion of inclusive hiring policies and work environments, can the employment gap of PWDs be reduced.

Acknowledgements: This research is supported by SkillsFuture Singapore, under the Workforce Development Applied Research Fund grant [GA2024-02]. 

Disclaimer: Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of SkillsFuture Singapore.

References 

Ananian, S. and Dellaferrera, G. (2024) A study on the employment and wage outcomes of people with disabilities. ILO Working Paper 124. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/publications/study-employment-and-wage-outcomes-people-disabilities (Accessed: January 18, 2026).

Bhaskar, A.U., Baruch, Y. and Gupta, S. (2023) “Drivers of career success among the visually impaired: Improving career inclusivity and sustainability in a career ecosystem,” Human Relations, 76(10), pp. 1507–1544. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221103529.

Brault, M. (2012) Americans With Disabilities: 2010, Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/demo/p70-131.html (Accessed: January 18, 2026).

Disabled People’s Association (2024) Achieving Fairness in Employment for Persons with Disabilities in Singapore. Disabled People’s Association. https://dpa.org.sg/achieving-fairness-in-employment-for-persons-with-disabilities-in-singapore/ (Accessed: January 18, 2026).

Holland, P. and Clayton, S. (2019) “Navigating employment retention with a chronic health condition: a meta-ethnography of the employment experiences of people with musculoskeletal disorders in the UK,” Disability and Rehabilitation, 42(8), pp. 1071–1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1519041.

Jans, L.H., Kaye, H.S. and Jones, E.C. (2012) “Getting Hired: Successfully Employed People with Disabilities Offer Advice on Disclosure, Interviewing, and Job Search,” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(2), pp. 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9336-y.

Konrad, A.M. et al. (2013) “Temporary Work, Underemployment and Workplace Accommodations: Relationship to Well-being for Workers with Disabilities,” British Journal of Management, 24(3), pp. 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00809.x.

Kudla, A. et al. (2025) “Person-, Job-, and Environment-Related Factors Associated with Long-Term Job Retention of People with Physical Disabilities,” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 35(4), pp. 860–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-024-10245-4.

Kulkarni, M. and Gopakumar, K. (2014) “Career Management Strategies of People With Disabilities,” Human Resource Management, 53. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21570.

Manokara, V. (2021) “Disability and Employment : Confronting Challenges in Contemporary Singapore,” in M.E. Wong and L. Lim (eds.) Special Needs in Singapore: Trends and Issues. WORLD SCIENTIFIC. https://doi.org/10.1142/9546.

Mathews, M. et al. (2021) Our Singaporean Values: Key Findings from the World Values Survey. 16. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/news/details/our-singaporean-values-key-findings-from-the-world-values-survey?fbrefresh=639043344616692983 (Accessed: January 18, 2026).

Ministry of Social and Family Development (2025) Retention rates of SG Enable’s Place and Train Programme, participation rates and how the programme’s effectiveness in supporting sustained employment and career progression is assessed, Ministry of Social and Family Development. https://www.msf.gov.sg/media-room/article (Accessed: January 18, 2026).

Ministry of Manpower (2025) Labour Force in Singapore 2024. Ministry of Manpower. https://stats.mom.gov.sg/Pages/Labour-Force-In-Singapore-2024.aspx (Accessed: January 18, 2026).

Ren, L.R., Paetzold, R.L. and Colella, A. (2008) “A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the effects of disability on human resource judgments,” Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), pp. 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.001.

Schur, L. et al. (2014) “Accommodating Employees With and Without Disabilities,” Human Resource Management, 53(4), pp. 593–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21607.

Stone, D.L. and Colella, A. (1996) “A Model of Factors Affecting the Treatment of Disabled Individuals in Organizations,” The Academy of Management Review, 21(2), pp. 352–401. https://doi.org/10.2307/258666.

Subramaniam, M. et al. (2022) “Employment of young people with mental health conditions: making it work,” Disability and Rehabilitation, 44(10), pp. 2033–2043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1822932.

Sundar, V. et al. (2018) “Striving to work and overcoming barriers: Employment strategies and successes of people with disabilities,” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 48(1), pp. 93–109. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-170918.

Wong, M.E. (2025) “A Review of the Enabling Masterplan in Singapore: Legislating the Next Steps.” https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5186333 (Accessed: January 18, 2026).

Crip joy in the university by Rachel S.Y. Chen (NTU Linguistics and Multilingual Studies)

“What does it mean to shift our ideas of access and care (whether it’s disability, childcare, economic access, or many more) from an individual chore, an unfortunate cost of having an unfortunate body, to a collective responsibility that’s maybe even deeply joyful?” (Lakshmi, 2018; p. 33)

On the first day of the semester about two years ago, Kristina appeared in my classroom, smiling brightly, seated in the front row. She told me that she had emailed about accommodations around her visual impairment and needed larger fonts on slides. I increased the font size and invited her to always take a front seat in my classes. 

In universities, accommodations hold some administrative weight, involving forms and letters that detail what is missing and needs patching over. Although accommodations are often imagined as special and individual requirements, “accommodations” when enacted and negotiated on the ground are highly relational and unfold through daily interaction. 

My conversations with Kristina continued throughout the semester and were never limited solely to problems posed by her visual impairment. She helped me understand how contrast and layout mattered as much as size, giving me consistent and friendly feedback on my class materials. Kristina also enlivened my class with photos of dogs at the Botanical Gardens and excited chatter around her interactions with them. 

My encounters with Kristina shifted my teaching practice. In each semester since, I have approached my class materials more deliberately, experimenting with different formats, and attending to how knowledge moves across different modalities. Every slide I now create uses larger fonts. But I also think of her when I see dogs in the park. Kristina left a legacy in reshaping my classes for other students who followed. In the shift from accommodation to mutual learning, experimentation, and collective responsibility, I caught a glimpse of crip joy.

Care work as joyful disruption

Disability justice, as articulated by Leah Lakshmi, Patty Berne, Sins Invalid, and others, builds upon the long legacies of resilience and resistance of those whose bodies and minds do not conform to dominant norms. Within this framework, care work is presented not as a quick fix, or a task to be delegated away from oneself, but rather as an inherently relational practice of revolutionary love without charity (Lakshmi, 2018). Care webs, accordingly, center an unapologetic articulation of access needs within the community, a communal sharing of responsibility, and an ethic of interdependence oriented toward collective liberation. 

What would it mean for the university to be organized around care work, and can this care also be joyful? Joy and care are not typically organizing principles of academic life. Universities are structured through measures of rigor, productivity, excellence, and innovation within an ecosystem of competition. Higher education often equates success with preparing students for participation in competitive market economies, shaping labor according to dominant norms that regulate not only productivity, but belonging and value. Care within this framework matters only as means to an end, if it matters at all. 

Crip joy disrupts prevailing institutional logic. It recognizes that care work—building community, giving and receiving support, mutual learning, and collective advocacy—can be profoundly joyful. To engage in care work requires openness: a willingness to step beyond one’s experience and into another’s. Care work not only disrupts institutional norms, but also our own habitual ways of thinking. 

Within the academy, care work takes many forms. In research, it calls for being reflective of the different ways in which we participate and interact with marginalized communities (Chen, 2021). At conferences, it can involve amplifying smaller voices and fostering platforms for meaningful dialogue. In relinquishing certainty and stepping into another’s perspective, we mutually transform one another, reshaping how we inhabit the world together. 

Collective responsibility as an institutional value 

Academia can be a powerful platform for disabled voices, but realizing this potential requires deliberate attention to collective access. Adopting a relational perspective can influence how institutions design policies, allocate resources, and build systems that allow everyone to participate fully. A relational perspective also guides how we approach specific events, such as conferences and panels.

Organizing a conference or panel is often framed as a logistical task, but the deeper operational goal is always to create spaces where people can connect. When viewed through the lens of care work, each logistical decision—whether arranging ramps, quiet rooms, or interpreters—reflects a collective decision to connect and ‘inhabit together’.

Providing a ramp for a wheelchair user or a calm room for a neurodivergent participant is not just a material accommodation, but a relational act that affirms the needs and agency of another person. Care work begins interpersonally and can extend outward into institutional structure. But responsibility for radical inclusion cannot rest on a single individual (for example, a faculty member). In the spirit of disability justice, it must be collective, embedded within layers of university life. Collective access requires infrastructure: policies, procedures, and systems designed to anticipate diverse needs. True inclusion emerges when responsibility is shared between faculty, administrators, leadership, and students communicating, supporting one another, and negotiating care together.

When responsibility is genuinely distributed, care becomes abundant. Events, classrooms, and policies can truly become spaces of participation and engaged learning. In doing so, universities have the great potential grow care webs, where both staff and students experience shared joy and belonging.

Identity and belonging in the classroom  

When we move beyond framing accommodation as a cost or burden, university culture can begin to shift. Students and staff alike may come to recognize that the value of their disabled lived experience. This realization can be especially profound for those who have long hidden or silenced aspects of their identity.

In my classes, I encounter students with diverse lived experiences: some are disabled themselves, others have disabled family members or friends, and many are pursuing careers in social work, allied health, education, counseling, advocacy, or related fields. Disability is already a theme for many, and creating more space for these conversations would enrich the classroom for everyone. 

Cultivating intentional care webs can create an environment of open dialogue and safety within the classroom. In one moment of crip joy in my course Neurodiversity and Communicative Disabilities, a student asked to share his lived experience of neurodivergence with the class. This moment felt significant; I understood from his sharing that this was the first time he had ever made visible his invisible disability. Alongside my students, I was able to not only benefit from my student’s disability expertise (Hartblay, 2020), but also to celebrate his courage in claiming his neurodivergent identity within our classroom community.

The university can become an important space of affirmation and empowerment. Higher education opens professional doors for students, and often transitions students into adulthood. When the university is reimagined as a place of collective care, faculty and staff may also feel empowered to embrace and celebrate their own disabled identities, experiencing crip joy alongside their students.

Dreaming disability justice 

Universities today operate in a world that feels constantly in flux: disturbances in global order, economic uncertainty, climate anxieties, and the rise of AI are reshaping professional and academic landscapes in unpredictable ways. These broader pressures pile onto the daily challenges that students, faculty, and staff already navigate every day. All of us feel it.

Challenging times make the limits of our systems visible and reveal where collective responsibility can make a difference. It is in response to these uncertainties—and in a world that feels increasingly unpredictable—that we can start to imagine access in bolder ways. What would it mean to extend inclusion beyond the usual boundaries of the university? Bringing neurodiversity education into pre-university classrooms (Lim et al., 2023), rethinking admissions criteria, or reimagining standardized testing are just a few possibilities. What if someone who has never had access to mainstream schooling could still step into a university classroom? What would it look like for non-speaking autistic students, like Matt (Chen, 2022), or other spellers such as Fifi (Coo, 2018) and Naoki (Higashida, 2013), not only to take college-level courses but also to participate in university leadership?

Universities have long been spaces for critical thought, where prevailing logics are questioned rather than reproduced. Instead of being fixated on acceleration and fearful of falling behind, universities are well-positioned to dream wild disability justice futures. What ways of being do we sideline when efficiency and optimization become our highest values? Crip joy offers a different orientation, one that values presence, community, and depth over pace. What if slowing down is, in fact, how we truly keep up? Crip joy reminds us that care work reshapes not only the university, but our shared humanity. After all, as Alice Wong says, “Community is magic” (Wong, 2020). 

References

Chen, R. S. Y. (2021). The researcher’s participant roles in ethical data collection of autistic interaction. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 4(2), 1-25.

Chen, R. S. Y. (2022). Improvisations in the embodied interactions of a non-speaking autistic child and his mother: practices for creating intersubjective understanding. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(1), 155-191.

Coo, F. (2018). A tiny space (Vol. 1). Ethos Books.

Piepzna-Samarasinha, L. L. (2018). Care work: Dreaming disability justice. Arsenal Pulp Press.

Hartblay, C. (2020). Disability expertise: claiming disability anthropology. Current Anthropology, 61(S21), S26-S36.

Higashida, N. (2013). The reason I jump: One boy's voice from the silence of autism. Hachette UK.

Monforte, Javier(2025). Introducing DisHappiness: a typology on the intersection between disability and happiness. In Goodley, D., Halsey, R., Scully, J., Singh, S., Titchkosky, T. and Wong, M.E. (Editors). The Disability Matters Scholarship Collection. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. 

Wong, A. (Ed.). (2020). Disability visibility: First-person stories from the twenty-first century. Vintage.

What is a Singapore disability studies?  by Victor Zhuang (NTU Wee Kim School of Communication and Information

In this paper, I will offer thoughts and ideas building on my work and also work-in-progress, but also of others, to reflect on this question of what is Singapore disability studies and more importantly, what it means to do and think about disability studies in Singapore. This is especially important given the host of scholarship that has emerged around Singapore, and discussing, critically, different aspects of disability in the Singapore context; including technology and the digital (Tan and Ho 2025; Tan and Zhuang 2025), urban space (Choo 2023), the arts (Zhuang 2021; Yap 2023; Zhuang, Choo, and Lee-Khoo 2024), education (Wong 2021a; Wong and Lim 2021), the UN Convention (Wong 2021b) and voice and representation (Tay and Zhuang 2026), among others. 

A significant milestone occurred in 2023, where together with my fellow editors, Meng Ee and Dan, we published Singapore’s first disability studies anthology, Not Without Us (Zhuang, Wong, and Goodley 2023). As a text, it was well received, with many disabled contributors and others contributing to the collection, and as a text offering different modalities of presentation. We subsequently were awarded best non-fiction at the Singapore book awards. But as we lay out in our introduction, we wanted the collection to be a starting point about what a Singapore disability studies could look like. But where do we start? 

There is plenty of food for thought for how this may look like. Scholars of global south disability studies, including Xuan Thuy Nguyen and Shilpaa Anand, among others, (Nguyen, Anand, and Padilla 2024; Anand 2016) have also called for the challenging of the applicability of models developed in minority world contexts. Take for instance, the social model of disability, which has gained prominence and near universal acceptance as the common ground and starting point to challenge the ableist present in societies throughout; yet we do not question its underpinning basis and deploy it uncritically. 

This is not to say that there is no utility in using such critical language and theories. In my work, I have deployed theories like the social model (Zhuang 2016), crip (Zhuang 2021), and also ablenationalism (Zhuang 2020) as ways to critically expose the underpinning logics and offer a provocation of what it means to enact social policies or societal logics in particular ways and not others. One of my earliest writings, for instance, used the social model (uncritically, as I would reflect on hindsight), to discuss and analyze the underpinning logics of disability policy and the Enabling Masterplan. Yet, these critical theories offer a common base for disability scholars based away from the West to engage with each other, but also to dialogue with minority world contexts. As cultural theorist, Chen Kuan Hsing (Chen 2010) advocates in Asia as method, theories developed in the west and away from Asian contexts may serve as a common critical language for thinking through issues and phenomena.

But what and how can a distinct Singapore disability studies develop, one with our unique ways, theories, epistemologies, methodologies and in years to come, our own traditions. Where can we begin to do this? 

Centering Disability, Studying inclusion 

As we highlight in our editors’ introduction in Not Without Us , one of the ways to begin to do that, is to move away from disability as simply the object of study, to disability as the starting point, what Dan Goodley describes as the means “to think through a host of political, theoretical and practical issues that are relevant to all” (Goodley 2011). To do so, is to center disability as the lens and to examine the conditions that disabled people are embedded in. To do so, is to highlight disability’s generative potential to illuminate the structures (some local, some global) that continue to inhibit disability in Singapore (Minich 2016; Schalk 2017; Kim 2017). 

There are a few ways to begin to advance this line of argument. The first, is to critically examine the underpinning logics and operations of inclusion in Singapore. As I highlight elsewhere, there is a broader embrace of disability inclusion in Singapore (Zhuang 2026), yet this takes on unique characteristics where disability rights are seemingly disavowed. In my book project, I am hoping to study inclusion to spotlight the ways this could happen without disability rights, and to also think through the oft-taken assumption that inclusion must happen with rights and to take as the benchmark, legislation and standards embedded in the Convention or the Americans with Disability Act. In other words, can Singapore offer a different orientation? And what might that look like? What problems might this have? To do this, is to begin to think through this notion of inclusion and to offer ways of theorizing and thinking differently about issues. 

The second way is to trace and think through what 1981 looks like in the Singapore context, and how disabled activists and leaders articulated their place vis-à-vis the international rights movement. In 1981, disabled people from the world over, including Vic Finkelstein, Ed Roberts, Benqt Linqvist, among others, came to Singapore and elected  a Singaporean, Ron Chandran-Dudley as the first chairperson of Disabled Peoples’ International. Much has been said about the importance of Singapore and 1981 in contributing to the current international focus on inclusion (Cogburn and Reuter 2017). But little has been discussed about how Singapore based activists and leaders articulated their struggles against exclusion and the language that they used. In advocating for equal participation, and in their struggles in what I have described as the golden era of disability activism in Singapore (Zhuang 2020), how was activism, rights, and identity articulated and spoken about? Did these ideas take on characteristics unique to our region? Did they rely on and reflect local contexts and contingencies? 

Of/With/By Disability, not just For

I want to end my thoughts about doing disability studies by discussing a project that myself, Meng Ee, Hock Huan and Hwei Lan were awarded in 2025. The project was to focus on the needs of the blind community and how Singapore can better meet their needs. 

When I was first approached sometime in mid 2024, the agency wanted this project to be wrapped up and completed in 6 months. Meng Ee knows this, because I told him we should be prepared to walk away if they insisted on that short timeframe. I’m glad we did, because we were funded for a 3-year project. 

But more important, when we conceptualized and pitched the project to the agency, we were very clear how the community that was to be studied must be central to the project in itself. Beyond doing the research in itself—interviews, FGDs, involving stakeholders and all… etc, we built an advisory panel of young blind people into the project—they became like a board of directors who joined us for our monthly updates; in these meetings they received updates about project progress and directions and the research team listened to and responded to their inputs and ideas. And we paid them a yearly “director’s” fee as part of their time. In other words, they became coproducers and coresearchers. 

In a separate project that we recently concluded, we conducted an accessibility audit of the university and wrote up a paper about it. The audit built on accessibility checklists that others have performed and our student-researchers partook in the process, from discussing how they wanted to use the checklists, to carrying it out, to analysing the data. I use the term student-researchers, because these were students with lived experiences of disability, who knew first-hand what it meant to be move through, navigate and experience space, but also researchers because they bought to the table, not just the conduct of the audit but also deep involvement in the project. And importantly, they were paid for their time and involvement, and are co-authors on the paper that is written (and also presented). 

I share these two projects because they are coproduced projects involving people with lived experience across the entire works. And this I think is fundamental for a Singapore disability studies—as many others have highlighted (White et al. 2025; Liddiard, Whitney, et al. 2019; Liddiard, Runswick‐Cole, et al. 2019). There are of course, instances where research for is necessary and creates important knowledge and impact. But by and large, where is not possible to do of or by, i.e. coproducing research, it is crucial that disability studies must work with. In other words, it is not simply that disability research focuses on questions of how we can do better—e.g. better inclusion and/or integration—rather, it also needs to focus on what creating with and producing with can be better achieved. For research and academe, just like any other sector, business, enterprise, is also prone to ableism, as Dan and others here have highlighted.

References

Anand, Shilpaa. 2016. "The Models Approach in Disability Scholarship: An Assessment of Its Failings." In Interrogating Disability in India: Theory and Practice, edited by Nandini Ghosh, 23-38. New York: Springer.

Chen, Kuan-Hsing. 2010. Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Durham: Duke University Press.

Choo, Bella. 2023. "“Being thick-skinned… is the only way to survive”: Disabling Spatialities Experienced by Mothers of Persons With Autism in Singapore." In Not Without Us: Perspectives on Disability and Inclusion in Singapore, edited by Kuansong Victor Zhuang, Meng Ee Wong and Dan Goodley, 115-136. Singapore: Ethos.

Cogburn, Derrick L, and Tina Kempin Reuter, eds. 2017. Making Disability Rights Real in Southeast Asia: Implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in ASEAN. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic.

Goodley, Dan. 2011. Disability Studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Sage Publications.

Kim, Jina B. 2017. "Towards a Crip-of-Color Critique: Thinking with Minich’s “Enabling Whom?”." Lateral 6 (1).

Liddiard, Kirsty, Katherine Runswick‐Cole, Dan Goodley, Sally Whitney, Emma Vogelmann, and Lucy Watts. 2019. "‘I was Excited by the Idea of a Project that Focuses on those Unasked Questions’ Co‐Producing Disability Research with Disabled Young People." Children & Society 33 (2): 154-167. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12308.

Liddiard, Kirsty, Sally Whitney, Katy Evans, Lucy Watts, Emma Vogelmann, Ruth Spurr, Carrie Aimes, Katherine Runswick‐Cole, and Dan Goodley. 2019. "Working the edges of Posthuman disability studies: theorising with disabled young people with life‐limiting impairments." Sociology of health & illness 41 (8): 1473-1487.

Minich, Julie Avril. 2016. "Enabling Whom? Critical Disability Studies Now." Lateral 5 (1).

Nguyen, Xuan Thuy, Shilpaa Anand, and Alexis Padilla. 2024. "Editorial: Thinking with Decolonial Disability Studies." Review of Disability Studies 19 (3-4). https://rdsjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1368.

Schalk, Sami. 2017. "Critical Disability Studies as Methodology." Lateral 6 (1).

Tan, Wenqi, and Shirley S. Ho. 2025. "Troubling autonomous public transport: Comparing people with ambulatory disability and older adults’ perceived barriers, identification, and communication preferences." Travel Behaviour and Society 40: 101029. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101029. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214367X2500047X.

Tan, Wenqi, and Kuansong Victor Zhuang. 2025. "Election information accessibility for disabled people during Singapore’s 2025 general election." Disability & Society: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2025.2558549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2025.2558549.

Tay, Sze-Hwee Jace, and Kuansong Victor Zhuang. 2026. "Centring disabled voices: Inclusion of lived experiences in policy." In A Research Agenda for Lived Experience and Disability Policy, edited by Jennifer Smith-Merry and Damien Mellifont. Cheltenham Edward Elgar.

White, Lauren, Alison Buxton, Kirsty Liddiard, Dan Goodley, Saman Qarni, Elizabeth Jansen, Harry Gordon, and Sarah Gillard. 2025. "Disabled Young People as Researchers, Designers and Makers: Aligning Makerspaces, Co-production and Critical Disability Studies." Journal of Disability Studies in Education: 1-25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1163/25888803-bja10039. https://brill.com/view/journals/jdse/aop/article-10.1163-25888803-bja10039/article-10.1163-25888803-bja10039.xml.

Wong, Meng Ee. 2021a. "The struggle for merit in meritocratic Singapore: Implications for persons with disabilities." In Special needs in Singapore: Trends and issues, edited by Levan Lim and Meng Ee Wong, 57-79. Singapore: World Scientific.

---. 2021b. "United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Singapore: Considering Some Post-Ratification Implications." In Special Needs in Singapore: Trends and Issues, edited by Meng Ee Wong and Levan Lim. World Scientific Publishing Company.

Wong, Meng Ee, and Levan Lim. 2021. Special Needs in Singapore: Trends and Issues. Singapore: World Scientific.

Yap, Alvan. 2023. "And Suddenly We Appear: Reflections on Disability Arts." In Not without us: Perspectives on Disability and Inclusion in Singapore, edited by Kuansong Victor Zhuang, Meng Ee Wong and Dan Goodley, 203-214. Singapore: Ethos.

Zhuang, Kuansong Victor. 2016. "Inclusion in Singapore: a social model analysis of disability policy." Disability & Society 31 (5): 622-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1197821.

---. 2020. "At the Margins of Society: Disability Rights and Inclusion in 1980s Singapore." Disability and the Global South 7 (1): 1813-1829. https://disabilityglobalsouth.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/07_01_02.pdf.

---. 2021. "The Included: Disability-Led Arts within Inclusion in Singapore." Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies 15 (4): 471-487. https://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2021.36.

---. 2026. "The Sign of Inclusion: Doing Disability beyond “Other” in Contemporary Singapore." Journal of Asian Studies.

Zhuang, Kuansong Victor, Bella Choo, and Grace Lee-Khoo. 2024. "Towards a Critical Pedagogy for Inclusion: Disability-led Arts and its Radical Promise in Singapore." Critical Arts 38 (4-5): 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2023.2295529.

Zhuang, Kuansong Victor, Meng Ee Wong, and Dan Goodley, eds. 2023. Not without us: Perspectives on Disability and Inclusion in Singapore. Singapore: Ethos.

A Reflexive Account of my Positionality as a Deaf Insider-Outsider Researcher by Phoebe Tay (Nanyang Technological University)

Throughout my PhD journey in Singapore, I have navigated the tensions of being both an insider and an outsider, a dynamic which Aiello and Nero (2019) explored in their own research. My experiences as a researcher resonate with their exploration of language ideologies in educational contexts and the dual positionalities of their insider-outsider status. After living in the USA for a long time, Aiello and Nero (2019) felt a sense of disconnection from the education contexts in Italy and Jamaica when they went to those countries to conduct research. While Nero who was originally born in Guyana initially felt like an outsider in Jamaica, her West Indian heritage and the cultural similarities between the two countries such as the climate and colonial history offered her a sense of familiarity. In Italy, Aiello’s role as an American “native” English speaker in the classroom made her invaluable to the educators there but also accentuated her outsider status as a researcher. Like Aiello and Nero (2019), I experienced a similar sense of rootlessness upon repatriating to Singapore from the USA. Although the environment was familiar, it also felt strangely foreign as I had grown used to deaf-centric practices in America.

Being born and raised in Singapore until the age of sixteen and then spending about 17 years in Australia and America, I have developed a worldview shaped by diverse cultural experiences (Tay, 2018). I come from a hearing family and grew up wearing two hearing aids and learning English through oral methods. I briefly attended the Canossian School for the Hearing Impaired (CSHI) in kindergarten, then spent most of my formative years in mainstream schools. Whilst living abroad, I acquired Australian Sign Language (Auslan) and American Sign Language (ASL) as my second and third languages. I identify as what Jaeger (2019) would describe as a “deaf new signer.” My training in deaf education, international development, and sign language linguistics combined with professional experience in these fields has significantly influenced my thinking. In April 2020, I repatriated to Singapore from the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic following a company-wide downsizing.

Prior to 2016, I had a small circle of Singaporean deaf friends who attended CSHI. As part of my MA in International Development at Gallaudet University, I did a summer internship with the Singapore Association for the Deaf in 2016. I undertook a research project on the identity politics of the SgSL communities then, which expanded my network in Singapore. My PhD study builds on that work and my network continued to widen further. As a doctoral student, I continued to interact with deaf and hearing signers of various backgrounds regularly within Singapore and internationally at academic conferences and on zoom. Therefore, I have access to deaf cultural and social capital or deaf epistemologies from various places (Hauser et al., 2010).

Navigating Audist Systems and Finding Strength in Deaf Academic Solidarity

While in Singapore, the agency I had in the USA such as the ability to independently make phone calls via the video relay service was gone. I had to confront the barriers of an audist establishment. At Gallaudet University, like Haualand (2017), I had taken for granted the ease of participation and high accessibility. Singapore’s audio-centric environment was a stark contrast. Organising access services like notetakers and sign language interpreters became a cumbersome, part-time task, much like what Haualand (2017) experienced upon returning to Oslo. The extensive paperwork assigned to me by the Accessibility Education Unit during my first two months overwhelmed me until my PhD supervisor checked in. She, with an admin staff member, helped to streamline the process.

Although I secured accessibility services, I felt frustrated and drained working with some of the local interpreters and notetakers who lacked the level of training I was used to in the USA. They sometimes added to my stress. I experienced conflict with some hearing interpreters, which revealed the pains of navigating accessibility in a system that has no interpreter accreditation. I also encountered a lack of sensitivity from some students and professors regarding inclusion and communication, often needing to justify my access needs which reflects the broader underrepresentation of deaf perspectives in academic spaces (Moriarty & Hou, 2023; O’Brien & Emery, 2014). 

The support of my Thesis Advisory Committee and my international network of deaf academics and trained hearing interpreters sustained me throughout the PhD journey. I also found camaraderie among a few deaf and hearing scholars who, like me, had repatriated to their home countries. At the PhDeaf retreat in Norway in December 2022, I discovered that deaf academics worldwide faced accessibility barriers to different extents depending on the resources in their country (De Meulder, Murray & Kusters, 2025). The retreat was held in a deaf-centred space where I did not need interpreters. The experience felt like a balm for my soul and offered a deep sense of solidarity and empowerment.

For my PhD Qualifying Exam in August 2022, I had a designated ASL interpreter who was familiar with me and my work, voice my presentation on zoom. This arrangement made me feel confident and was a refreshing change, as my experience navigating accessibility in Singapore had left me feeling anxious. However, reflecting on the interpreting experience, made me feel conflicted because Singapore Sign Language (SgSL) advocates discourage using ASL and enforce linguistic purism by encouraging people to sign “pure” SgSL. However, SgSL interpreters are few in Singapore and inexperienced in academic contexts, leaving me with no other option. It was a matter of survival in a place with very limited resources. I was also conscious of using some SgSL signs that are not found in ASL because the ASL interpreter wouldn’t know those signs. If I had signed a Singlish word, the ASL interpreter probably would not have voiced it correctly because of her American accent and her unfamiliarity with the Singaporean accent. Therefore, I had to make some identity compromises by using an ASL interpreter. I suppressed my Singapore deaf identity by avoiding the use of some SgSL signs, while she voiced interpreted for me. Although the interpreting situation went smoothly, I experienced mixed feelings as I was caught in between competing identities as a PhD student, a deaf Singaporean, being transnational, and using ASL. 

Interrogating Epistemologies, Decentring Western Lenses, and Navigating Insider-Outsider Tensions

As Friedner (2017) argued, doing Deaf Studies research in the Global South demands that scholars critically examine their own epistemologies and ontologies, a challenge which I faced firsthand. Although Singapore is by definition not a Global South country, I needed to consciously detach from the western lens through which I had been viewing my country because it risked clouding my interpretation of the data. Yet, this effort was not without difficulty. The insider-outsider dynamic continues to significantly influence my approach to research, as I strive to adopt a framework that centres Singaporean deaf lived experiences while also complementing and expanding on western theories (Zhang et al., 2015). 

Walker (2021) offered a different perspective on the insider-outsider deaf researcher positionality. Having lived in the UK his entire life without any extended time abroad, his insider-outsider perspective differs from Aiello and Nero’s (2019) which is influenced by their international mobility. The following quote reflects his perspective which I can relate to.

“The positionality of researchers in terms of insiderness/outsider-ness is an essential conversation when the development of community-based knowledge is a resource for academic publication as well as empowerment of the community in question. As a researcher who is a member of the Deaf community, I start from a position of knowledge, though not all-encompassing knowledge, of this community; there is still much I do not know. […] I am known within the community with the privileges that come with it, but I have avoided being a hegemonic presence in the community. Everyday, my positionality changes depending on what I am doing, who I am with and how I wish to be perceived” (Walker, 2021, p. 57). 

While the deaf epistemologies I acquired abroad provided me with a foundation of knowledge, returning to Singapore required me to reacquaint myself with the local culture. Although repatriation presented numerous challenges, remaining in Singapore for the entire duration of the PhD offered some advantages over being based at a university in another country. Had I only visited Singapore briefly for data collection, I would have struggled to accurately capture the everyday realities on the ground that my research participants experienced as I would be far removed from their experiences. The ongoing cultural immersion enabled me to offer more precise and insightful representations of the context in my writing as I directly witnessed power dynamics occurring in the SgSL communities and experienced the accessibility barriers and limited resources that constrained my agency. I was often frustrated and angry as I felt stuck.    

I had opportunities to build relationships organically. I attended deaf events, accepted invitations to connect socially, and initiated meet-ups whenever possible. Like Walker (2021), I have attempted to avoid being a hegemonic presence within the SgSL communities as I feel that it makes me less relatable although people are aware of my position. I also made time to share useful information to promote deaf community empowerment. Walker’s experience navigating various spaces resonated with me: 

“I do not represent the position of ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ as a dichotomous description, but instead as an in-betweenness of insider-ness and outsider-ness” (Walker, 2021, p. 60). 

I move through different spaces such as the SgSL communities, international deaf networks, academic contexts, and hearing environments. I find myself continually transitioning between various liminal spaces where I navigate entering different cultural and linguistic contexts that are not fully within sign language communities nor entirely within hearing cultures, but exist at the intersection of both. They often involve complex negotiations of identity and language use where I switch between different sign languages, spoken/written languages and cultural expectations. My position sets me apart as few deaf individuals in Singapore pursue an academic path, positioning me differently even within the SgSL communities. There is a shifting sense of both belonging and difference, highlighting my own “in-betweenness of insider-ness and outsider-ness” (Walker, 2021, p. 60). My international mobility and academic journey continually reshape my sense of home and belonging as I engage with diverse social groups and spaces.  

The Balik  Kampung Lens

Balik kampung is a Malay phrase typically used in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei that has a literal translation of “return to the village” or “going back home”, and refers to the mass movement of migrants going back home to their hometowns or villages during festive occasions like Chinese New Year, Deepavali and Hari Raya Aidilfitri (Balik Kampung: A Meaningful Journey Back Home for Festive Gatherings, 2025). As a repatriate, this phrase reflects my perspective which has influenced my interpretations and analysis of the findings in my research study.  

Recognising the power dynamics within Deaf Studies, particularly the marginalisation and underrepresentation of deaf researchers with diverse intersectional identities in both Global North and Global South contexts is crucial (Hou & Ali, 2024; Moriarty & Hou, 2023). Conducting research from Singapore means that my positionality brings a unique and much-needed perspective to academic scholarship, thereby contributing to greater diversity and representation in the field. Through reflexive practice, I have become more aware of the biases shaped by my exposure to Western deaf epistemologies and my knowledge gaps of the local context, which illuminated some of my blind spots. Thus, an acknowledgement of my positionality and consideration of ethical issues that may arise are essential as they have direct implications for the data collection and interpretation of my study’s findings.

In conclusion, my positionality as a repatriate informs and permeates every aspect of this study as my balik kampung perspective fundamentally shapes both the research process and its outcomes. As the field of Deaf Studies continues to evolve, researcher reflexivity is indispensable as it serves as the foundation for research that is meaningful and inclusive. 

References

Aiello, J., & Nero, S. J. (2019). Discursive Dances: Narratives of Insider/Outsider Researcher Tensions. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 18(4), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1623035 

Balik kampung: A meaningful journey back home for festive gatherings. Indian Ocean Travel by TOURISMER. (2025, March 23). https://tourismer.io/balik-kampung-a-meaningful-journey-back-home-for-festive-gatherings/ 

De Meulder, M., Murray, J. J., & Kusters, A. (2025). This is our rhythm: Academic becoming and realignment  in deaf space. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, enaf061. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/f3r74_v1

Friedner, M. (2017). Doing deaf studies in the global south. In Annelies Kusters, Maartje de Meulder, & Dai O’Brien (Eds.), Innovations in deaf studies: The role of deaf scholars (pp. 173–197). Oxford University Press. 

Haualand, H. (2017). When inclusion excludes. Deaf, researcher – either, none, or both. In A. Kusters, M. De Meulder, & D. O’Brien (Eds.), Innovations in deaf studies: The role of deaf scholars (pp. 401–427). Oxford University Press. 

Hauser, P. C., O'Hearn, A., McKee, M., Steider, A., & Thew, D. (2010). Deaf epistemology: Deafhood and deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(5), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.0.0120 

Hou, L., & Ali, K. (2024). Critically examining inclusion and parity for deaf global south researchers of colour in the field of sign language linguistics. In A. H. Charity Hudley, C. Mallinson, & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Inclusion in linguistics (pp. 37–58). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197755303.003.0003 

Jaeger, H. (2019). “Not like them”: New signers’ narrative constructions of the authentic signer. Ampersand, 6, 100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2019.100048 

Moriarty, E., & Hou, L. (2023). Deaf communities: Constellations, entanglements, and defying classifications. In A. Duranti, R. George, & R. Conley Riner (Eds.), A New Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (1st ed., pp. 122–138). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119780830.ch7 

O’Brien, D., & Emery, S.D. (2014). The role of the intellectual in minority group studies: Reflections on deaf studies in social and political contexts. Qualitative Inquiry 20 (1). pp.27-36

Tay, P. (2018, November). Being d/Deaf in Singapore: A personal reflection of deaf culture and identity. S/pores journal. June 17, 2024, https://s-pores.com/2018/11/being-d-deaf-in-singapore-a-personal-reflection-of-deaf-culture-and-identity-by-phoebe-tay/  

Walker, J. (2022). The deaf community of Brighton and Hove and the performance of cultural capital: self, body and landscape (Version 1). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex]. https://hdl.handle.net/10779/uos.23490737.v1 

Zhang, H., Wing Cheung Chan, P., & Kenway, J. (Eds.). (2015). Asia as method in education studies: A defiant research imagination. Routledge. 

Inclusive Hiring in Higher Education: An Analysis of DEI, Disability, and Health in Singapore Universities’ Job Advertisements by Kerri Heng Yi Ping and Meng Ee Wong (NIE) 

Generally, the ideal worker is understood to be non-disabled (Foster & Wass, 2012), and this is especially the case in today’s academic context (Price, 2024). Scholars have written extensively about how neoliberal academia comprises ableist environments that have not been designed with disabled students and staff in mind (Brown, 2021; Brown & Leigh, 2018, 2020; Dolmage, 2017a; Kerschbaum et al., 2017; Price, 2024). Here, the Singapore researchers of this online contribution further explore the ways in which “academic ableism” (Dolmage, 2017b) manifests in local university job advertisements. 

From May to August 2025, the researchers searched for job advertisements published on the websites of Singapore’s six autonomous universities, namely: Nanyang Technological University (NTU), National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT), Singapore Management University (SMU), Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), and Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD). Search keywords included “disability,” “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” as well as “autism,” because a handful of job advertisements in psychotherapy and disability (special needs) research mentioned the term “autism.” Job advertisements were saved as PDF files, and thematically analysed, manually.

Dominant reflections of disability and DEI in university job advertisements

Boilerplate statements

Overall, Singapore’s six autonomous universities published inconsistent boilerplate statements reflecting an insincere and sporadic approach to diversity hiring. For example, about 1 out of 9 job advertisements published by NTU contained exactly the same diversity statement, which stated briefly the university’s anti-discrimination stance towards protected characteristics that mirrored part of Singapore’s Workplace Fairness Act, passed last year (Singapore Statutes Online, 2025). We reproduce the diversity statement below: 

“The College of Science seeks a diverse and inclusive workforce and is committed to equality of opportunity. We welcome applications from all and recruit on the basis of merit, regardless of age, race, gender, religion, marital status and family responsibilities, or disability.”

Surprisingly, these job advertisements were dominantly from Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines in NTU. While this could be interpreted as a progressive step towards greater diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM disciplines, the researchers are disheartened to note that diversity statements did not appear in almost all job advertisements published by the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences departments in NTU, barring one job advertisement from the History department that contained the same diversity statement, which also appeared in job advertisements from NTU’s STEM disciplines.  

Diversity refers to international diversity

While NUS had about 1 out of 9 job advertisements mentioning the terms “diverse” or “diversity,” this did not indicate that a diversity statement was present. The terms “diverse” and “diversity” referred to the job candidate’s ability to work within and across diverse teams, including internationally diverse teams. The term “diverse” also referred to NUS’ diverse student and alumni body, in which the word “diverse” was vague, unexplained, and not broken down into specific protected characteristics.

Gender and age at the forefront of Singapore universities’ DEI discourse

While the researchers commend NTU’s Mathematics department for stating clearly in its job advertisements that it hopes to inspire more female students to pursue careers in Mathematics, and applaud SUSS for its focus on age diversity in all of its diversity statements published in its job advertisements, it is noteworthy that diversity refers mostly to international/cultural diversity, gender, and age in the context of Singapore’s autonomous university. Disability is still predominantly framed or reflected as either a research specialization (in special needs research at SIT, for instance) or a work specialization (as a disability support officer or psychotherapist). Hence, disability is still framed in terms of the charity or medical models of disability, where it remains a passive recipient of care and support. 

DEI in job advertisements by local schools of medicine and public health

NTU and NUS have four schools of medicine and health spread amongst them, namely, NTU’s Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCSoM), the NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine and the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (SSHSPH), as well as the Duke-NUS Medical School, a graduate university collaboration between Duke University in the United States and Singapore’s NUS. Although Critical Disability Studies has often been critical about the medical model of disability so prevalent in the fields of medicine and public health, the researchers are heartened to observe that job advertisements published by the NTU and NUS medical and public health schools do mention DEI, albeit to varying extents. For example, in a job advertisement by NTU’s LCKSoM hiring for the position of Programme Manager, it was clear that the job scope included the hiring of researchers according to both institutional policies and the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. In another job advertisement by NUS SSHSPH hiring for the position of “Professor of Health Equity,” it was clear from the job description that interested candidates should have a research focus on understanding health disparities and eliminating health inequities in Asian contexts. Researcher Kerri Heng Yi Ping’s background as a Research Assistant at both NUS SSHSPH and Duke-NUS Medical School also helps her to understand that these NUS schools do have a research focus on the social causes and consequences of health. These indicate that Singapore’s health education and research landscape is integrating the social model of disability.

Marginalisation of disability in DEI discourse and suggestions for improvement 

While gender diversity (NTU) and age diversity (SUSS) may have been embraced in some of the job advertisements studied, the researchers note the relative absence or marginalisation of disability overall. The limited disability messaging in the Singapore autonomous universities’ job advertisements indicates that disability is still framed as a beneficiary of care and support (i.e., according to the medical and charity models of disability). Hence, we believe that disability is still not perceived as a desired colleague or co-researcher in the Singapore autonomous university. The researchers flag this as a point of serious concern in Singapore’s university job market, and suggest ways to include disability as a desirable candidate in job advertisements: 

• Provide the option for job candidates to request for job interview accommodations. 
• Include disability as one of several protected characteristics in all job advertisements across all autonomous universities (not sporadically). 

Conclusion: Where is the disabled worker in the Singapore university? *inspired by Brown and Leigh, 2018

Sharing Disability Matters’ commitment towards nurturing the next generation of disabled and disability-positive researchers, the researchers choose to end this Disability Dialogue with the following provocation: Where is the disabled worker in the Singapore university? Who are they and what are their areas of specialisation? Disability Matters welcomes fellow university staff (both academic and non-academic) to reach out with questions, comments, lived experiences, and stories about disability in the university; no narrative is too small. Thank you.  

References

Brown, N. (Ed.). (2021). Lived Experiences of Ableism in Academia: Strategies for Inclusion in Higher Education (1st ed.). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447354123

Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2018). Ableism in academia: Where are the disabled and ill academics? Disability & Society, 33(6), 985–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1455627

Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (Eds.). (2020). Ableism in Academia: Theorising experiences of disabilities and chronic illnesses in higher education. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv13xprjr

Dolmage, J. (2017a). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9708722

Dolmage, J. (2017b). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9708722

Foster, D., & Wass, V. (2012). Disability in the Labour Market: An Exploration of Concepts of the Ideal Worker and Organisational Fit that Disadvantage Employees with Impairments. Sociology, 47(4), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512454245

Kerschbaum, S., Eisenman, L., & Jones, J. (2017). Negotiating Disability: Disclosure and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9426902

Price, M. (2024). Crip Spacetime: Access, Failure, and Accountability in Academic Life. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478059370

Singapore Statutes Online. (2025, February 14). Workplace Fairness Act 2025—Singapore Statutes Online. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/WFA2025/Uncommenced/20250304073414?DocDate=20250213

What makes an anti-ableist university? by Dan Goodley and Rebecca Lawthom (University of Sheffield)
WAARC:  Wellcome Anti-Ableist Research Culture
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ihuman/wellcome-anti-ableist-research-culture-waarc

1. We are one of 24 institutions funded by the Wellcome Trust to research, develop and enhance research culture within their universities (see Lewis-Wilson et al, 2023).  £1 million project brings together disabled and non-disabled academics at the University of Sheffield - working in consultation with disabled people's organisations - to find and promote anti-ableist practices in TUOS.

Priority Area 1: Environment experiments with new ideas for inclusive recruitment and employment.
Priority Area 2: Development produces new guidelines on accessible research events and deliver a new course on inclusive research methods to raise capacities of PGRs and ECRs.
Priority Area 3:Collaboration puts disabled people front and centre and in collaboration will offer funding, via an open call, to other researchers and professional services colleagues to produce their own inclusive research projects and we will revisit the Concordat on Researcher Development to ensure inclusivity.  
Cross-cutting themes: brings together key findings and recommendations - some of which i will share today

2. Our team includes the following people:  Project Coordinator: Liz Dew and Elinor Noble
Research Associates: Elaina Gauthier-Mamaril, Nikita Hayden, Sophie Phillips, Armineh Soorenian
Academic Leads: Dan Goodley, Antonois Ktenidis, Rebecca Lawthom, Kirsty Liddiard, Katherine Runswick-Cole, Lauren White
Senior Leadership Team: John Flint, Koen Lamberts, Meera Warrier  https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ihuman/waarc/waarc-team

3. We adopt a critical disability studies approach
So we understand disability as a positive driving subject of change rather than a problematic object that needs solving. We want to consider how disability can inform our research areas

Priority Area 1: Environment experiment with new ideas for inclusive recruitment and employment.
Priority Area 2: Development produce new guidelines on accessible research events and deliver a new course on inclusive research methods to raise capacities of PGRs and ECRs.
Priority Area 3:Collaboration puts disabled people front and centre and in collaboration will offer funding, via an open call, to other researchers and professional services colleagues to produce their own inclusive research projects and we will revisit the Concordat on Researcher Development to ensure inclusivity.  
Cross-cutting themes: bring together key findings and recommendations
 

4. We are assisted by disabled people’s organisations who constitute our leadership team and are remunerated at daily consultancy rates for their work on WAARC

5. Anti-ableism - to work as a better university we have brought in the expertise of our Disabled People’s Organisations

6. We know that Disabled people are often not imagined to be in the university
The pipeline from education to higher education is often blocked for disabled people
The contemporary university is an ableist university: the expectation and idealisation of able-bodied-and-mindedness
Ableism masquerades as other apolitical phenomenon including meritocracy, authonomy, self-sufficiency, responsibilisation, choice, ability

7. 
When disability is rendered deficient it calls forth a host of pathological, curative and rehabilitative discourses.
When disability is understood as opportunity it provides new affirmative ways of thinking about and being together in the university.  
We are all part of the university.  
We are the university. 

8.
An anti-ableist university is a depathologising university
When a university moves to the beats of ableism and the rhythms of disablism then this clashes with the aspirations of disabled people. In contrast, the promise of the depathologising university is found in re-humanising the institution, rebuilding inclusive communities, mutually recognition one another, embracing of our relational selves, a requirement for intersectional engagement, a commitment to epistemic justice and equitable collaborations with disabled people’s organisations (Goodley, Lawthom and Liddiard, 2025).  

9. EMERGING THEMES
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ihuman/waarc/waarc-emerging-headlines

10.
Priority Area 1: Anti-ableist Environments

1.1. 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.

11. 

Priority Area 1: Anti-ableist Environments

1.2. 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.

12.
Priority Area 2: Anti-ableist Developments
2.1. 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.

13.
Priority Area 2: Anti-ableist Developments
2.2. 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. 
University researchers should foreground the research and innovation of disabled people’s organisations.
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.

14
Priority Area 3: Collaborative Inquiry
3.1. Funding of a number of research projects delivered in collaboration with disabled people’s organisations (DPOs)
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 because it 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.

15
Priority Area 3: Collaborative Inquiry
3.2. 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.
We need to reposition disability and neurodivergence as an opportunity to rethink new forms of mentoring, support and capacity building.

16
Cross-cutting themes
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 Ride Higher initiative of the National Association of Disabled Staff Networks (NADSN) which seeks to document and share inclusive practice in relation to the building of research culture that centres disabled people.
Any generation of KPIs should not take place in an institutional silo: university leaders responsible for and committed to anti-ableism should seek to generate good practice in concert with the enabling work of other universities. 
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. 
Online webinars and workshops presented in a thoughtful and careful format offer real opportunities for disabled colleagues to share good practice with one another.

17
Thank you
Goodley, D. (2024). Depathologising the university. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 33(3), 1001–1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2024.2316007
Goodley, D., Liddiard, K. and Lawthom, R. (2025) ‘The Depathologising University’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 27(1),120–133. Available at: https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.1240  
18
 

Literature Reviewed

Disability Inclusion in Singapore’s Higher Education: A Critical Examination of Access and Support Provisions Conveyed on Autonomous University Websites by Meng Ee Wong and Kerri Heng Yi Ping (NIE)

Abstract

Despite growing global commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), disability remains unevenly integrated within higher education systems. Research indicates that rising enrolment of disabled students has not been matched by systemic transformation, with support structures often reactive and uneven. This study critically examines how disability inclusion is represented across the public websites of Singapore’s six autonomous universities. Drawing on Critical Disability Studies (CDS) and employing Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA), the research analyses how disability is framed within diversity statements, disability support pages, and related institutional materials. Findings reveal rhetorical commitment to inclusion alongside persistent medicalised, deficit-oriented, and compliance-based constructions of disability. While all six universities signal diversity commitments, disability remains marginal within broader DEI narratives, predominantly student-centric, and operationalized through accommodation models rather than structural redesign. Instances of soft exclusion, governance through medical screening, and problematic definitional language further complicate claims of inclusion. Although there is evidence of disability representation and support, institutional messaging largely reflects inclusion within an ableist meritocratic framework. The paper argues that meaningful disability inclusion requires structural transformation rather than accommodation-based compliance.

1. Introduction

Global research demonstrates that increased participation of disabled students in higher education has not been matched by structural reform. Although faculty attitudes are increasingly positive and inclusive pedagogies are emerging, implementation remains uneven and structural barriers persist (Campoverde-Molina et al., 2023; Pérez-Esteban et al., 2023). Institutions frequently comply with legal mandates while retaining ableist assumptions that frame disability as individual deficit rather than socially constructed phenomenon (Gabel et al., 2016; Pickard, 2021).

University websites function simultaneously as recruitment tools, information repositories, and symbolic declarations of institutional values. Research shows that disability services are often difficult to locate online and frequently relegated to student services divisions (Jackson & Jones, 2014; Gabel et al., 2016). The digital layer of inclusion is therefore not merely technical but discursive.

Singapore presents a distinctive context. Following ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2013, the state strengthened inclusive education policies and introduced national disability strategies. Disability Support Offices (DSOs) have existed in publicly funded universities since 2014 (Siau, 2014), and assistive technology funding is available nationally (Ministry of Education, 2025). Nonetheless, empirical scholarship examining how disability inclusion is publicly communicated at institutional level remains limited.

This study analyses disability representation across the websites of Singapore’s six autonomous universities. Guided by Critical Disability Studies (Goodley, 2013; Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009), the analysis interrogates whether disability is framed as deficit, compliance obligation, or as a valued dimension of institutional diversity.

2. Literature Context

Research identifies three interconnected layers shaping disability inclusion in higher education :

1. Pedagogical layer – faculty attitudes, inclusive teaching, Universal Design for Learning (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017; Osuna-Juárez & González-Castellano, 2025).
2. Institutional services layer – Disability Resource Centres, accommodation procedures, grievance systems (Kim & Lee, 2025; Li et al., 2023).
3. Digital/representational layer – website accessibility, discoverability, discourse (Campoverde-Molina et al., 2023; Solovieva & Bock, 2014).

Across contexts, accommodation systems often require extensive medical documentation, reinforcing deficit-based narratives (Pickard, 2021). Low service uptake is frequently attributed to stigma and reluctance to self-disclose (Li et al., 2023). Digital accessibility violations persist globally, even among elite institutions (Alahmadi & Drew, 2017; Campoverde-Molina et al., 2023).

In Singapore, progression rates of students with special educational needs into postsecondary pathways have increased (Ministry of Social and Family Development, 2024), and national policy frameworks such as the Enabling Masterplans support inclusive education. However, qualitative studies highlight stigma, disclosure dilemmas, and social exclusion, particularly for students with invisible disabilities, autistic students and students with hearing loss (Carlisle, 2022; Heng, 2017; Lim et al., 2023). Additionally, university websites provide inadequate information on disability service and support (Wong, 2014).

3. Methods

The study employed Qualitative Content Analysis (Schreier, 2012) guided by Critical Disability Studies. Publicly accessible webpages were collected between May and August 2025 through systematic keyword searches. Webpages were archived as PDFs to ensure dataset stability.

The coding framework was concept-driven, examining:

• Individual versus social model framing
• Constructions of inclusion and exclusion
• Epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007; Kidd & Carel, 2017)
• Meritocratic and productivity discourses

Frequency patterns were documented, but interpretive emphasis focused on discursive framing, silences, and positioning.

4. Findings

4.1 Disability Within Diversity Frameworks

Five of six universities published university-wide diversity statements. However, disability was typically embedded within broader lists and overshadowed by gender, age, as well as multicultural and international diversity. This mirrors international findings that disability is often marginal within DEI discourse (Gabel et al., 2016; Wolbring & Nguyen, 2023).

4.2 Student-Centric Framing

DEI messaging was predominantly student-focused. Only one university referenced “differently abled employees,” reflecting euphemistic language that softens disability identity. The relative absence of staff-focused disability policy aligns with scholarship showing the ideal academic worker is constructed as able-bodied and neurotypical (Waterfield et al., 2018; Brown & Leigh, 2018).

4.3 Accommodation-Based Models

Five universities described examination and assessment adjustments, housing support, assistive technology, and graduation accommodations. However, support was framed within disclosure-based accommodation models rather than systemic redesign. This reflects broader patterns of individualised responsibility (Grimes et al., 2019; Hewett et al., 2018). There was little evidence of Universal Design for Learning integration (McDuff et al., 2020).

4.4 Medicalised and Deficit Definitions

One university provided disability definitions reflecting medicalised framing. Descriptions of dyslexia as “torture” when writing by hand and references to “depressed student[s]” show that deficit-oriented definitions of neurodiversity align with critiques of medical model dominance (Pickard, 2021; Osborne, 2019). Another university’s disability definition associated visual impairment with poorer academic performance. Such framing risks reinforcing deficit narratives within meritocratic systems.

4.5 Governance, Screening, and Soft Exclusion

Mandatory medical screenings and disclosure prompts illustrate governance through medicalisation. Program-level advisories “strongly” discouraging students with certain impairments from enrolling in specific disciplines function as soft exclusion. Although not outright bans, such messaging reflects compatibility filtering rather than structural redesign (Konur, 2006; Easterbrook et al., 2019). The phrase “permission to use assistive technology” further reflects hierarchical regulation of access.

4.6 Representation and Symbolic Inclusion

Only one university featured a graduate with visual impairment in a substantial narrative. Disability visibility was limited compared to gender and multicultural representation. Isolated success stories risk exceptionalising disabled achievement (Johnson, 2025).

5. Discussion

The findings reveal rhetorical inclusion alongside structural continuity of ableist norms.

Disability remains marginal within diversity hierarchies. Gender and multicultural/international diversity appear institutionally compatible with meritocratic excellence, while disability challenges assumptions of productivity and efficiency (Heng & Lim, 2021; Wong, 2021). This reflects ableism as a system of norms privileging able-bodiedness (Campbell, 2009).

Accommodation-based models preserve institutional neutrality while positioning disability as deviation requiring exception (Dolmage, 2017). Governance through screening and documentation aligns with critiques of biopolitical regulation (Pickard, 2021; Titchkosky, 2003). Advisory exclusions prioritise employability and projected labour market compatibility over institutional redesign (Waterfield et al., 2018).

Symbolic representation without structural reform risks reinforcing exceptionalism rather than normalisation of disability presence.

6. Conclusion

Singapore’s autonomous universities demonstrate formal commitment to diversity and maintain established disability support infrastructures. However, website representations largely reflect:

• Disability as individual deficit
• Inclusion as compliance obligation
• Accommodation as reactive adjustment
• Access as conditional upon documentation 

Less visible are structural redesign, workforce inclusion, and epistemic recognition of disability as diversity.

Meaningful transformation requires reimagining academic excellence beyond narrow productivity metrics and embedding accessibility as foundational institutional design. By foregrounding the digital and representational layer of institutional practice, this study contributes to international disability scholarship and highlights how discourse shapes belonging and access within higher education.

References

Alahmadi, T., & Drew, S. (2017). An evaluation of the accessibility of top-ranking university websites: Accessibility rates from 2005 to 2015. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 21(1), 7-24.

Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2018). Ableism in academia: where are the disabled and ill academics?. Disability & Society, 33(6), 985-989.

Campbell, F. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. Springer.

Carlisle, D. (2022). See me, hear me: Successes and challenges of students with invisible disabilities at university in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences, 9(1).

Campoverde-Molina, M., Luján-Mora, S., & Valverde, L. (2023). Accessibility of university websites worldwide: a systematic literature review. Universal Access in the Information Society, 22(1), 133-168.

Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.

Easterbrook, A., Bulk, L. Y., Jarus, T., Hahn, B., Ghanouni, P., Lee, M., … Parhar, G. (2019). University gatekeepers’ use of the rhetoric of citizenship to relegate the status of students with disabilities in Canada. Disability & Society, 34(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1505603

Fricker, M. (2007), Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 

Gabel, S. L., Reid, D., Pearson, H., Ruiz, L., & Hume-Dawson, R. (2016). Disability and diversity on CSU websites: A critical discourse study. Journal of Diversity in Higher education, 9(1), 64.

Goodley, D. (2013). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability & society, 28(5), 631-644.

Griful-Freixenet, J., K. Struyven, M. Verstichele, and C. Andries. (2017). Higher education  students with disabilities speaking out: Perceived barriers and opportunities of the universal design for learning framework. Disability & Society. 32 (10), 1627-1649. doi:10. 1080/09687599.2017.1365695. 

Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., & Buchanan, R. (2019). University student perspectives on institutional non-disclosure of disability and learning challenges: Reasons for staying invisible. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(6), 639-655.

Heng, K. Y. P. (2017). Understanding the social barriers faced by university students with hearing loss in Singapore. Nanyang Technological University.

Heng, T. T., & Lim, L. (2021). Diversity, difference, equity: How student differences are socially constructed in Singapore. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(6), 693–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2021.1910204

Hewett, R., G. Douglas, M. McLinden, and S. Keil. (2018). Balancing inclusive design, adjustments  and personal agency: Progressive mutual accommodations and the experiences of university  students with vision impairment in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Inclusive  Education. 24 (7), 754-770. doi:10.1080/13603116.2018.1492637. 

Jackson, D. L., & Jones, S. J. (2014). A Virtual Commitment: Disability Services Information on Public Community College Websites. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2), 129-138.

Johnson, B. (2025). Beyond tokenism: Power, partnership, and the craft of authentic portrayal. Critical Studies in Television, 17496020251405465.

Kidd, I. J., & Carel, H. (2017). Epistemic injustice and illness. Journal of applied philosophy, 34(2), 172-190.

Konur, O. (2006). Teaching disabled students in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680871

Li, H., Yu, J., Luo, Y., & Guo, C. (2023). Inclusion and equity: Experiences and dilemmas of disability resource centers at world-class universities. International Journal of Chinese Education, 12(1), 2212585X231161859.

Lim, E., Wong, S., Gurbuz, E., Kapp, S. K., López, B., & Magiati, I. (2023). Autistic students’ experiences, opportunities and challenges in higher education in Singapore: A qualitative study. Education Sciences, 13(8), 818.

McDuff, N., Hughes, A., Tatam, J., Morrow, E., & Ross, F. (2020). Improving equality of opportunity in higher education through the adoption of an inclusive curriculum framework. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 22(2), 83-121.

Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What's so ‘critical’about critical disability studies?. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47-75.

Ministry of Education. (2025). Special educational needs support at institutes of higher learning. https://www.moe.gov.sg/special-educational-needs/school-support/ihl 

Ministry of Social and Family Development. (2024). Disability trends report 2024. https://www.msf.gov.sg/docs/default-source/research-data/disability-trends-report-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=46eace93_8

Osborne, T. (2019). Not lazy, not faking: teaching and learning experiences of university students with disabilities. Disability & Society, 34(2), 228-252.

Osuna-Juárez, A., & González-Castellano, N. (2024). Understanding professors’ and students with disabilities’ perceptions of inclusive higher education: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 39(5), 774-788.

Pickard, B. (2021). How is disability portrayed through Welsh universities’ Disability Service web pages?: A Critical Disability Studies perspective. Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2021.140102

Pérez-Esteban, M. D., Carrión-Martínez, J. J., & Ortiz Jiménez, L. (2023). Systematic review on new challenges of university education today: Innovation in the educational response and teaching perspective on students with disabilities. Social Sciences, 12(4), 245.

Siau, M. E. (2014, March 8). Support offices on campus for special needs students. TODAY. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/support-offices-campus-special-needs-students

Solovieva, T. I., & Bock, J. M. (2014). Monitoring for Accessibility and University Websites: Meeting the Needs of People with Disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2), 113-127.

Titchkosky, T. (2003). Governing embodiment: Technologies of constituting citizens with disabilities. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 517-542.

Waterfield, B., Beagan, B. B., & Weinberg, M. (2018). Disabled academics: A case study in Canadian universities. Disability & Society, 33(3), 327-348.

Wolbring, G., & Nguyen, A. (2023). Equity/equality, diversity and inclusion, and other EDI phrases and EDI policy frameworks: A scoping review. Trends in Higher Education, 2(1),

168-237.

Wong, M. E. (2021). The struggle for merit in meritocratic Singapore: Implications for persons with disabilities. In M. E. Wong & L. Lim (Eds.), Special needs education: Trends and issues in Singapore. (pp. 57–79). Singapore: World Scientific.

Wong, M. E. (2014). Support for students with visual impairment in higher education in Singapore: Considering university publicity materials conveying disability services and support. CAISE Review. 2, 62-76.