Abstract
Introduction
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) occupations have experienced strong growth and lower rates of unemployment than non-STEM occupations in recent years (U.S. Joint Congress Economic Committee, 2012). The growth in many STEM occupations has outpaced the personnel supply, resulting in a lack of workers being trained to meet the growing demand (U.S. Department of Labor, 2007). The current demand for STEM workers provides a great opportunity for people with disabilities (Cardoso et al., 2013; Dutta et al., 2015; Hawley, Cardoso, & McMahon, 2013). However, people with disabilities continue to be underrepresented in STEM education and employment, and the various barriers and challenges to pursuing STEM employment have been described (Alston & Hampton, 2000; Eriksson, Welander, & Granlund, 2007; Lee, 2011; Martin et al., 2011). Some of the reasons for the disconnection between STEM employers and prospective STEM employees with disabilities include misperceptions of employers about people with disabilities as unreliable and non-productive workers, a lack of knowledge in the labor market about the work skills and capacities of people with disabilities, and the inability of public vocational rehabilitation agencies to successfully match qualified candidates with employers hoping to fill STEM positions (Wehman, Brook, Green, Hewett, & Tipton, 2008). To bridge this gap, the chief executive officer of SPR Consulting created the nAblement division in 2003 to explore effective ways to recruit, train, and support qualified candidates with disabilities for information technology (IT) positions within SPR or as contracted IT professionals for other companies in Chicago.
SPR Consulting is a medium-sized IT company in Chicago that recruits and hires project teams to build, integrate, test, and manage business solutions for companies around the world. SPR has been in business for more than 40 years. The nAblement channel was created with the purpose of training, mentoring, and networking job candidates with disabilities to support their efforts for employment and professional development in IT. In 2008, nAblement launched the Information Technology Knowledge Abilities Network (ITKAN) as an IT community of practice that provides education and instruction for professionals and future professionals with and without disabilities (nAblement, n.d.). nAblement also provides consulting to companies in the greater Chicago area on diversity and inclusion with a focus on disability. Therefore, SPR/nAblement provides a unique approach to help employers hire people with disabilities in STEM occupations and career pathways to the middle class for people with disabilities.
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of SPR/nAblement’s unique efforts to assist people with physical disabilities to find employment in IT occupations. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with six SPR/nAblement staff and administrators, six people with physical disabilities served by SPR/nAblement, and five employers who had hired individuals with physical disabilities from SPR/nAblement’s candidate pool. Because of the limited literature describing company perspectives of recruiting and hiring people with disabilities in IT, we used a qualitative approach, consensual qualitative research (CQR), to meet the purpose of this study (Hill, 2012; Hill, Knox, Thompson, & Williams, 2005; Hill, Thomson, & Williams, 1997).
Methods
CQR has become a popular qualitative methodology in counseling, social science, and, more recently, rehabilitation counseling research (Fleming, Phillips, Kaseroff, & Huck, 2014; Huck, Fleming, Phillips & Kaseroff, 2014; Kaseroff, Fleming, Huck, & Phillips, 2014; Phillips, Kaseroff, Fleming, & Huck, 2015). CQR provides a qualitative tool for exploring and understanding human phenomena while addressing some of the limitations inherent in qualitative research, such as threats to validity from researcher bias and interpretation and lack of structured methods for coding and analysis (Hill, 2012). CQR is based largely on grounded theory (Hill, 2012). However, as noted by Hill (2012), CQR and grounded theory differ in that (a) CQR researchers use the same semi-structured interview protocol across all participants (allowing for probing questions) whereas grounded theory researchers often use a more unstructured, evolving interview protocol, (b) CQR uses multiple judges and auditors to analyze the data whereas grounded theory often uses only one judge, (c) CQR researchers quantify the representativeness of main ideas whereas grounded theory researchers do not attempt to specify the proportion of participants who shared an idea, and (d) the CQR method of data analysis is relatively fixed whereas the grounded theory method is more flexible.
CQR Stages
The four key steps in the CQR process are (1) conducting the interview, (2) determining domains, (3) creating core ideas, and (4) completing the cross-analysis. The interview consists of open-ended questions that provide a framework for responses without limiting those responses to a predetermined point of view. Follow-up questions are used to encourage elaboration of ideas rather than to direct or influence the response. The construction of domains, which are essentially a list of topics that can be used to broadly describe the participant’s experiences, is completed by having each judge independently read transcribed interviews. The judges then come together in an iterative process to obtain consensus regarding the domains across interviews. Judges then create core ideas that are used to summarize what was said in each of the domains. This process, like the creation of domains, requires consensus across judges. The core ideas facilitate the most complex phase of cross analysis, which involves judges ascertaining common themes across participants within each domain.
Researchers
In order to increase awareness and reduce undue bias in data collection and analysis, team members discussed biases before conducting any interviews and then again before analysis. Members of the research team had uniformly positive beliefs about companies taking action to employ people with disabilities, and all assumed that these efforts would benefit from the in-house knowledge possessed by employers and staff. Few other biases existed prior to the interviews because of the limited exposure they had to these company provided services.
Participants
Interviews were conducted with a combination of SPR/nAblement staff and administrators (n = 6), people with physical disabilities who had obtained work through nAblement’s services (n = 6), and employers who had hired people with physical disabilities from SPR/nAblement’s candidate pool (n = 5). Unlike non-profit and government settings where the person with a disability is traditionally referred to as the client, SPR/nAblement referred to IT companies that they would secure project-based work from as the client or customer and the person with a disability as the candidate. The same definitions for client and candidate will be used throughout this article, with client and customer being used interchangeably throughout to represent companies contracting with SPR. Participants were predominantly male across the three groups, including all six of the SPR/nAblement staff, three of the five hiring managers, and four of the six employees with disabilities.
Measures
The three semi-structured interviews conducted with each group were derived from a combination of existing literature and personal experiences of the researchers in providing employment services. In accordance with CQR methods, researchers were careful to explore their biases throughout instrument construction. As recommended, open-ended probes were included, but interviewers were not limited to using only pre-developed probes (Burkard, Knox, & Hill, 2012). Each interview began with an introductory question about the participant’s company or employment. All three interview protocols focused on the SPR/nAblement experience, but differed to capture the unique knowledge and perspectives of each group. The SPR/nAblement staff and administrator interview protocol was the longest, with eight questions and multiple prepared probes. The candidate and client interview protocols had very few probes and consisted of seven and six items, respectively. As expected, the SPR/nAblement staff and administrator interviews took, on average, much longer to complete, with an average of just over one hour compared to 30 minutes or less per interview for the other two groups.
Procedure
Recruitment of participants
The director of nAblement services provided contact information for participants from all three of the targeted groups. This information was used to make an email or phone request to administrators asking permission to interview individuals within the VR system. Emails included the purpose of the study, as well as the informed consent information. Those who opted to participate by email gave verbal consent to participate prior to the interview. All interviews were conducted via telephone by one or two researchers (two researchers were used whenever schedules allowed to assist with the interview). Use of two interviewers whenever possible, although not required in CQR, helped guard against interviewer bias while enriching the information with probing from more than one perspective.
Data preparation and coding
After the interviews were conducted, the audio recordings were placed on a secure web server for transcription by a paid transcription service. The analysis team consisted of three coders and two auditors. Coding of transcripts began with each member of the coding team individually attempting to create domains from three interviews for each group of participants through an iterative process of identifying and extracting meaningful data units (i.e. phrases, sentences, paragraphs). Coders then met to gainconsensus on these initial domains. Once consensus was reached for each group, coders completed the remaining interviews individually before again coming together for final consensus across all interviews. The next step, creating core ideas, was accomplished by summarizing the main points from each data unit. This was done by the team, with creation and consensus of core ideas being accomplished as a group.
With consensus achieved across the three coders on domains and core ideas, the analysis was sent to a team of two auditors. These auditors were familiar with the project but had not assisted with the coding. Each auditor individually reviewed the domains and core ideas and provided suggested changes, additions, and deletions to the coding team. The coding team then arrived at a consensus once again in determining whether to accept or reject the suggested changes.
Categories were created in the next phase of the analysis; this was accomplished by having coders take a subset of the interviews and individually develop categories for each domain. The coding team then achieved consensus for each category and completed coding of the remaining interviews. The auditors were again enlisted to audit the categories and recommend any changes. The coding team made final changes to the categories in response to auditor feedback.
Results
A cross-group comparison showed a few identical domains and categories across all three groups. A greater number of domains and categories were unique to only SPR/nAblement staff and administrators. CQR protocol was followed for translating the frequency of participant comments to a standard measure of representativeness for each category in the sample. These rules differed slightly between categories that included all three groups and categories that were exclusive to one participant group. A reference for how representativeness was determined for categories that included all groups versus categories emerging from only one group is provided in Table 1.
As expected, SPR/nAblement staff and administrators typically had more to say about the organization and services provided by nAblement than clients or candidates. Results represent the views of only SPR/nAblement staff and administrators unless noted otherwise.
Philosophy
The philosophy for nAblement was addressed by asking respondents to describe their motives for creating and maintaining nAblement as part of SPR. Three distinct categories emerged from the participant interviews, all at typical representativeness. These typical categories were as follows: (a) profit motive, (b) human service motive, and (c) disability as enriching the workplace. Comments from one participant did not fit with any category and were thereforecategorized in another category.
Typical
The most commonly mentioned category in this domain, profit motive, was referenced by five of the six SPR/nAblement administrators and staff. This category emphasized SPR’s business model, with a focus on nAblement being a profitable component of SPR. Such profit motives were demonstrated by one administrator who stated, “Obviously, we’re a for-profit company, and we felt that people with physical disabilities were an untapped section of the labor force that we could use to help our customers.” Similarly, another administrator stated, “It’s very important to us that it’s profitable. This is a business after all.”
The second typical category, human service motive, consisted of responses from three administrators. This category focused on nAblement and SPR’s mission to improve the lives of people with disabilities. Comments in this category included references to helping individuals improve their overall lives by gaining “a sense of value and purpose” through employment. One administrator shared a story that illustrates the human service motive. He stated that nAblement’s focus
... is on making sure that people have jobs. Either with our own company or with our client companies. I remember one situation where we had a man [with a physical disability] that we trained and did good work for us. Then he came in one day ... and resigned. I said, “Well, what’s the problem?” He resigned from here because he was able to get more money somewhere else. He thought that it was really, a little bit ungrateful of him and disloyal. I said, “Are you kidding me?” I had a smile ear to ear. A success story ... He’s very grateful and I’m sure what goes around comes around, and that will somehow pay back to us and if it doesn’t it’s just very rewarding to see this person who had an opportunity seize the moment and take it as far as he did.
The last typical category in this domain, disability as enriching the workplace, was also referenced by three administrators and focused on the belief that disability adds value to the workplace for everyone. For example, one respondent said that hiring people with disabilities “makes us all better in some way. It makes us see that we all have varying abilities of everything.” Another stated, “I think it’s good for a company to seek out and work with people who have a disability. I think it just improves the lives of everyone in the workplace.”
It was clear from the interviews that the philosophy of nAblement included multiple, typically co-existing motives. Participants were most prone to speak of these motives in combination, as in the case of one staff member who said, “There’s a profit incentive to it and there’s also a feel good, or philanthropic motive to do it as well,” and another who stated, “Our CEO has a mission to not only help people with disabilities, but also to make it profitable.”
SPR and nAblement reciprocity
During the interviews, SPR administrators were asked about any advantages that arose from housing nAblement within a larger for-profit IT solutions company. Responses included comments of SPR benefiting the people with disabilities who come through nAblement and of nAblement directly benefiting SPR. Each domain is considered separately.
nAblement benefitting SPR
Two typical categories, improved SPR image and reaching an untapped talent pool, were identified in this domain. They are presented below.
Typical
The category improved SPR image contained statements about nAblement enhancing external party impressions of SPR. Three of the six administrators explicitly commented that having nAblement as part of the company provides an observed competitive advantage. One participant expressed this by saying,
sometime we’ve seen where a customer is trying to decide whether to work with SPR or another firm, and they see us as being equals, and then they hear that we do this work with people with disabilities – that we actively recruit them, bring them into our firm – and then they say, “Well, that breaks the tie, SPR is favorite.”
Another participant called it a “competitive differentiator” and added that “it kind of helps [SPR] stand out a little bit.”
The other typical category in this domain, untapped talent pool, spoke to a perceived advantage nAblement provides SPR in recruiting talent. Three of the six administrators discussed how individuals with physical disabilities provide an underutilized source of talent in the IT industry. One administrator commented that nAblement candidates are
a source of talent that our competitors don’t recognize. We have a competitive advantage. We beat them to the punch. We’re able to hire people that they would otherwise want to hire, but they didn’t think about it. Then our customers, we’re able to deliver our solutions, our information technology solutions to our customers in a higher and better way than our competitors so we get more business than they do.
Another participant added that it can be difficult to find qualified IT professionals at times, and that recruiting through nAblement is one way of addressing this issue and accessing additional qualified workers.
SPR benefiting nAblement
SPR and nAblement staff commented about multiple benefits that SPR provides to nAblement and the people with disabilities served by nAblement. Overall, this domain consisted of three categories, presented here in order of representativeness, from typical to rare.
Typical
Typical categories included connection to employment opportunities and in-house training and mentoring. Connection to employment opportunities, referenced by four participants, discussed ways nAblement capitalizes on the business development efforts of SPR. Administrators explained that nAblement candidates often benefit by being included in teams assembled by branches of SPR for specific projects contracted to a client. These situations allow SPR and nAblement to make decisions about including people with disabilities on the teams. As one administrator stated,
... we have some industry leaders in parts of the company, and we’re able to drive exciting work, and work that requires a tremendous amount of trust from our customers. While we do that, we’re able to then kind of build the team as we see fit in a lot of instances, and some of the times it could make sense to have an nAblement person on the team.
The other typical category in this domain was in-house training and mentoring. Three SPR/nAblement administrators discussed the strength of SPR, as an IT company, being able to provide nAblement candidates with unique levels of technical training and professional mentorship. As one participant succinctly put it, “We invest in our employees. Training programs, career training, and then non-career training.” Another noted that “most people come to us without a whole lot of experience, and we spend a good deal of time providing them training so that they’re ready to kind of go out in the workforce,” and another, “If they have the right stuff then we know that we can train them in the technology.” For career exploration, nAblement candidates are able to “come in and shadow.” One administrator also described how SPR can provide continuing professional support to nAblement candidates, saying that, “If they’ve got some sort of stumbling block, they could come in and sit down and meet with one of our senior developers who understands that realm [the IT industry] very, very well, and work with them to get around that hurdle.”
Candidates echoed SPR/nAblement administrators on both categories. For instance, one candidate stated,
The biggest benefit of having nAblement be a part of a large home like this is that you can bring people in maybe that have some background or need to hone up on skills, you can provide them with opportunities to work with other people that are working in the IT space to business mentors.
Assets
This domain was addressed by asking the respondents to describe those aspects of SPR/nAblement’s service model that have contributed to nAblement’s success. Three categories emerged from the participant interviews, all being of typical representativeness.
Typical
The three typical categories that comprised this domain were labeled internal, external, and senior management support. Internal assets reflected statements from four administrators on the systems or circumstances inside of nAblement that benefit its mission or services. This category mostly emphasized the qualities of the director, such as his experience with disability, his ability to build rapport with others, and his large social network. One respondent discussed the director’s experience with having a physical disability and how he provides insider “mentorship” to the candidates. Another administrator talked about the director’s past experiences as helping him better “relate” to people with disabilities and better suited to provide “coaching opportunities.” Other comments included references to the director’s long history of chairing “several boards” related to disability and him being “well-connected.” One miscellaneous statement regarding nAblement candidate’s dedication and hard work was also included in this category.
External assets reflected statements from three administrators on systems or circumstances outside of nAblement and SPR that benefit nAblement’s mission or services. This category primarily involved comments related to the nature of the IT industry. For example, one administrator raised the point that “the unemployment rate in technology is low,” while another respondent stated that, in the IT field, “ ... there’s typically an accommodation that can be done pretty easily.” Other administrators discussed how the rise in hiring temporary contracted workers has benefited nAblement and how community programs, such as Skills for Chicagolands Future (a public-private partnership with the goal of obtaining work for the unemployed), have provided a pool of candidates for nAblement while also helping with training costs.
Another typical category in this domain was senior management support, which captured statements from four of the six administrators. These comments detailed how support from high-ranking individuals in SPR has facilitated nAblement’s success. For instance, one participant illustrated this point by noting that “I think throughout the entire SPR organization, everybody wants to see nAblement be successful.”
Rare
One additional category consists of comments from two administrators regarding flexibility with time and resources. These statements reflect the general idea that flexibility has helped nAblement be successful. One participant suggested that it is SPR’s status as a private company that allows nAblement flexibility in terms of recruitment and services,, stating “I think when you’re in the private sector, you have more money to invest in it, per se. We make a profit on things that some of those dollars, not all of them, but some of those dollars can be invested in getting something like this going and providing accommodation, or in going out and actively recruiting people with a disability. You have to invest some time and money into that.”
Challenges
This domain was addressed by asking SPR/nAblement staff and administrators to describe some of the challenges or barriers to the success of nAblement, including any effect of the local and national economy during the recent recession. This domain consisted of three categories that emerged from the participant interviews. The results that follow are presented in order of representativeness from general to typical. There were no categories that fell into the rare representativenessgroup.
General
All six administrators identified employer perceptions and practices as a challenge to the nAblement model of job placement. In this category, administrators often cited employer’s negative attitudes toward disability, misinformation about disability, prejudice, and fear of lawsuits as main barriers to job placement. For instance, one respondent stated, “There is still, in my opinion, some real predisposition out there toward concern with bringing professionals in with disabilities. ... unspoken prejudices,” while another respondent stated that, “There is misinformation that you will open yourself up to lawsuits, to closer scrutiny. There is a feeling that you can’t have somebody with a disability working for you because they are not going to work as hard or they are not as talented.”
Typical
Participants identified three typical categories. These were the economy, insufficient qualified workers with disabilities, and another category made up of miscellaneous responses. Economy was referenced by five participants and focused on the negative influence of the economy on the IT industry or on persons with disabilities in the IT field. This category predominantly included comments related to the negative effects the great economic recession had on the employment and hiring of people with disabilities. One administrator stated that,
the recession, and obviously I know the contracts and the research that suggest that the labor force with disabilities were hit dramatically harder than the general population labor force by the recession... I would say, [the recession] hit [candidates with disabilities] harder than our traditional candidates.”
Another respondent similarly stated, “I just think that in the end it [the recession] could affect people with a disability probably more closely because they are ... again because of the misperceptions about people with a disability.”
The second typical category was the limited number of qualified workers with disabilities and consisted of responses from three administrators. This category focused mainly on the lack of qualified and experienced candidates with disabilities coming into the nAblement program. Typical responses included, “I definitely don’t see enough qualified candidates,” and, “I would say we have a lot of gaps in our resumes, and we certainly don’t have enough candidates coming into the channel ... maybe 20%, maybe 25% tops, are on their face truly potentially strongcandidates.”
Four administrators provided responses that were identified as other challenges to the model. Comments in this category included issues such as a lack of proactive professional development (e.g. “professionals with disabilities...need to be cognizant of the world we live in, how to access resources, knowledge, and they should be grabbing it proactively every day.”), the difficulty of keeping up with the “speed of some of these [IT] environments,” the challenge of finding accessible client sites, and the difficulty of providing employees to business clients in a timely fashion.
Suggestions and future directions
SPR administrators were probed about their ideas for providing services to candidates with disabilities, without consideration of time or resources. Three categories emerged from their responses, each endorsed by three to four candidates and being of typical representativeness.
Four administrators commented that more training or internship opportunities would help improve employment services for IT job candidates with disabilities. Statements in this category indicated that training or internship would increase nAblement candidates’ technical skills while also building resumes. For instance, one participant discussed the potential value of putting nAblement job candidates “through a real training program that gave them the market credentials that they might need.” A different administrator shared a related idea, saying that an “internship program” or “boot camp” could be helpful in getting less qualified individuals better prepared for the IT job market.
The second category in this domain involved adjustments in SPR/nAblement processes. These organizational changes included one participant stating that nAblement might wish to focus on “software testing” and “software development” because these areas might be good entry points for less experienced candidates looking for opportunities. Another noted that people with physical disabilities often experience transportation issues related to limited mobility, saying, “we would like to look at a model where we could provide a workplace that allows us to do things without going to our client.” The third simply noted that putting more company resources into recruiting well-qualified candidates with disabilities would likely lead to a greater number of positive outcomes.
The third category of potential improvements, endorsed by three SPR administrators, involved macro-level changes outside of the organization. These ideas focused on social changes that might enhance employment outcomes. One suggested change was that new professionals in the IT field be focused on expanding and diversifying their skill sets, looking into areas such as “big data,” “security,” and “software testing.” Another hoped-for change in this category was for businesses to “be willing to cross the ... risk line to say, ‘I will do this; I want this person here.’ I think they can be of value. I’m not going to worry about a lawsuit or something bad ... ” Yet another respondent stated, “My goal would be everyone’s evaluated just on their pure skills.”
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of SPR/nAblement’s unique efforts to assist people with physical disabilities to find employment in IT occupations. The business model for employing people with disabilities used by SPR/nAblement provides insights that may benefit other organizations seeking a competitive advantage through employment of people with disabilities. An intriguing aspect of the job placement approach reviewed in this study is its focus on just one industry. The traditional job placement approach has regularly resulted in specialized caseloads based on disability type. It seems possible that the demand-side placement approach may benefit at times from specialization based on employer type. Many job developers who work in public or private not-for-profit vocational rehabilitation agencies are generalists who attempt to help job seekers obtain employment across a variety of fields. The specialized approach appears to afford some noteworthy benefits though. For instance, job placement specific to IT was described by our participants as enhancing the knowledge of that industry, including employer needs, which has often been cited as a key ingredient in successful job development (e.g., Callahan, Griffin, & Hammis, 2011; Carlson, Smith, & Rapp, 2008; Migliore, Butterworth, Nord, Cox, & Gelb, 2012). Further, research indicates that employers appreciate working with knowledgeable, credible sources to address their specific business needs (Gustafsson, Peralta, & Danermark, 2013; Simonsen, Fabian, Buchanan, & Luecking, 2011). Compared to the generalist approach, our study suggests that specialized job developers may be even more successful at identifying job opportunities.
Training and preparation has been shown to have positive effects on employment outcomes and general career success (e.g., Card & Sullivan, 1987; Couch, 1992; Johnson & Eby, 2011). SPR/nAblement staff and administrators stated that a specialized demand-side focus provided an advantage in providing training and mentorship. The staff and administrators in this study viewed professional development, including training and mentorship, as important features of their service model. Although it would likely be difficult for generalist job developers to provide specific training and mentorship to job seekers, organizations with a focus on only one or a few common industries may be able to offer such services. For example, the administrators in this IT business were able to train junior candidates in highly specialized skills, such as software development and testing. Additionally, SPR/nAblement staff and administrators were able to provide mentorship specific to the IT industry. Mentoring involves an experienced individual investing time, knowledge, and effort to provide developmental career support to a less experienced individual (Weinberg & Lankau, 2011). Egan and Song (2008) demonstrated that mentorship can enhance job performance and job satisfaction for new employees. Research on mentorship has typically looked at relationships between employees in the same company, but having a mentor may also benefit job seekers with disabilities looking to establish themselves in their industry of choice. In order to better understand the benefits of this model, future research should examine the effects of technical training and mentorship on employment outcomes within the context of specialized job placement efforts.
Although nAblement certainly seems to benefit from being housed within a larger IT company, nAblement also appears to be a valuable component of its parent company, SPR. SPR/nAblement staff and administrators pointed to two specific reasons that a staffing solutions company may want to consider providing employment services for people with disabilities. First, administrators frequently commented that people with disabilities represent an untapped pool of human resources that their competitors may have overlooked. The demand for new talent is currently growing across many fields (e.g., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; Langdon, McKittrick, Beede, Khan, & Doms, 2011). Thus, a source of capable employees could make a considerable difference for a business in a competitive industry. Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, and Kulkarni (2008) similarly noted that people with disabilities are often an underutilized source of competent workers, and argue that there is no valid reason for this to continue.
The other potential business advantage of providing employment services for people with disabilities is the positive impact that a prosocial agenda can have on a brand’s reputation. There is some evidence that people have a general tendency to evaluate companies along dimensions of warmth and competence, and these judgments likely influence consumer behavior (Aaker, Vohs, & Mogilner, 2010). Given the choice between two equally competent and efficient companies, consumers will likely choose the one that conveys more generosity and trustworthiness. Administrators in the present study felt that their mission to help job seekers with disabilities enhanced their appeal to potential business partners, giving them a competitive advantage within their market. This belief is congruent with the results of a study by Siperstein, Romano, Mohler, and Parker (2006). Using a large sample of adults in the United States (N = 803), Siperstein and colleagues found that 92% of respondents view companies more favorably if they hire people with disabilities. Similarly, 87% of participants indicated that they would prefer to give their business to companies that employ people with disabilities. Taken together, evidence is mounting that companies that facilitate employment for people with disabilities may gain a competitive advantage by conveying warmth and generosity to consumers.
SPR/nAblement staff and administrators suggested the importance of getting people with disabilities involved in vocational training and career decision-making early on, rather than waiting until later in life. Early entry into a career pipeline is particularly important for STEM careers, because these occupations often require extensive industry-specific knowledge and training. The literature suggests that people with disabilities are less likely than people without disabilities to be involved in school activities and receive career preparation, especially in science and mathematics (Eriksson et al., 2007; Lee, 2011). This lack of career planning during adolescence and early adulthood creates a disadvantage for individuals with disabilities, including lowered self-efficacy and knowledge of vocational interests (Cardoso et al., 2013). Such disadvantages likely contribute to the challenge of nAblement identifying qualified candidates. One potential way to increase STEM job opportunities and create an early vocational path for individuals with disabilities may involve collaboration between state/federal VR and companies such as SPR. Companies like SPR can provide access to IT specific training and work opportunities for young VR consumers beginning their careers. Early engagement in such experiences could help people with disabilities be more competitive in the job market and more prepared for working in the STEM fields. In fact, some rehabilitation scholars have already suggested that early vocational interventions for students with disabilities are beneficial and can improve recruitment and retention rates in STEM occupations (Hawley et al., 2013). Beyond the increased access to training and job opportunities, VR providers could gain a better understanding of the demands and requirements of the IT industry.
Although collaboration between VR agencies and community businesses like nAblement seems valuable, it is important to note some challenges that may exist. For instance, nAblement’s candidates were described as having fewer needs and more previous experience in the IT field than typical VR clients. Whereas nAblement focuses mostly on candidates with physical and sensory disabilities, the state/federal vocational rehabilitation program provides services to a wider range of disabilities, with a priority for serving those with the most severe disabilities and the most difficulty in the workplace. Due to these differences, VR clients may require more extensive services than the typical nAblement job candidate. Also, nAblement candidates with relatively minor needs seeking funding for training or other employment related issues may be less likely to receive immediate services in state/federal VR programs due to their ability to function more effectively in the work environment. Nevertheless, industries in need of qualified employees and VR agencies with training resources may stand to benefit from each other.
nAblement administrators identified negative employer attitudes and misinformation about disability as main barriers to successful employment outcomes. These responses mirror the barriers reported in other studies (Kaye, Jans, & Jones, 2011; Fraser et al., 2010). This study supports previous claims that many employers lack knowledge and understanding related to disability and the workplace. It suggests that an increase in disability-related understanding is a key aspect of changing employer perceptions and practices toward persons with disabilities. More simply put, although understanding and emphasizing business motives (e.g. productivity, profitability) may be an important ingredient of successful job development, efforts should also be directed toward reducing negative employer attitudes. One service that could potentially assist with reducing negative employer attitudes is disability diversity training. Disability diversity training has received limited attention in the literature, but researchers in the rehabilitation field advocate for its use and potential for reducing negative employer attitudes and increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities (Phillips, Deiches, Morrison, Chan, & Bezyak, 2015). One of the primary objectives of disability diversity training is to dispel myths about disability in the workplace, including concerns about productivity, qualifications, and insurance premiums. Other areas covered by disability diversity trainings include disability legislation, accommodations, and developing effective communication strategies (Phillips, Deiches et al., 2015). Vocational rehabilitation programs, in both the public and private sector, may benefit from implementing disability diversity training services for employers and local businesses. This may not only improve relationships with businesses in the community, it could also potentially reduce the negative employer attitudes that act as employment barriers for people with disabilities.
Limitations
The results of this study should be considered within the context of a few limitations. Small samples are the norm in CQR research (Hill & Williams, 2012), but caution should be taken in generalizing the comments from our sample to other populations or settings. Our research team followed the recommended guidelines for self-identifying bias and other processes for analyzing the data objectively, including bringing in two auditors to minimize the likelihood of misinterpretation of comments. However, a different research team may have drawn alternative conclusions, and our backgrounds with placement services may have biased our interpretations despite our best efforts. Despite these limitations, we believe that our study has some important implications for rehabilitation services and future research.
Author note
This research was partially supported by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research Grant #H133B13001 to Virginia Commonwealth University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Employment of People with Physical Disabilities. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the endorsement or position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.