The Alliance for Access to Computing Careers

AccessComputing: From Research to Practice

By Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph. D.
Richard Ladner, Ph. D.
University of Washington

Increasing the Participation of People with Disabilities in Computing Fields: From Research to Practice

Abstract

Although demand for workers in specific computing fields continues to be high, individuals with disabilities are significantly underrepresented in both postsecondary academic programs and careers in these areas. The authors of this article analyze access challenges for individuals with disabilities pursuing computing fields and share practices that have proven to be successful in attracting groups to high tech fields where they have been underrepresented. They share information about strategies employed by the Alliance for Access to Computing Careers (AccessComputing), whose goal is to increase the participation of people with disabilities in computing careers. AccessComputing is funded by the National Science Foundation and led by the University of Washington (UW). Efforts such as those of the Alliance are expected to ultimately benefit society by making computing opportunities available to more citizens and enhancing computing fields with the perspectives of people with disabilities.

The Need to Increase Participation

Demand for qualified systems designers, computer scientists, information professionals, software developers, information systems analysts, technology teachers, computing faculty, and other computing professionals is outpacing supply. Yet, data from the Computing Research Association shows the number of newly declared computer science majors declined 41% from 2000 to 200542. As reported by a Microsoft executive in the May 27, 2006 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education (p. A32), "It's a major concern for us because we're a company that runs on people. Our hiring has continued to go up, but unfortunately what we're seeing right now is a decline in the potential supply." It is unlikely that the increased demand will be met by the "majority" Caucasian males who currently dominate computing fields18. To meet the demand for computing professionals, women, racial/ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities should be encouraged to pursue computing fields.

Persons with disabilities are underrepresented in IT (information technology) fields. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs22, 10.5% of the population ages 3 to 17 is served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Part B) in 2005. This group does not include students with disabilities that are determined not to directly affect their learning as defined by IDEA, yet are covered by civil rights legislation such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: 2004, 5% of computer science, information science, and computer systems bachelor's graduates in 2003-4 are disabled24. According to the National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Earned Doctorates: 2000-2004, 0.8% of computer science, information science, and computer science Ph.D. graduates in the years 2000 to 2004 are disabled26. According to National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT): 2003, 5% of employed IT in 2003 have disabilities29. This percentage closely corresponds to the number of IT graduates. However, it should be noted that many of those in the group of individuals with disabilities employed in IT fields became disabled later in life. More generally, all the percentages noted above cannot be compared directly because different definitions of "disability" are employed and because a disability can occur any time during a person's life.

Concern for including individuals with disabilities in IT fields is not just a matter of quantity, but of quality as well. As stated eloquently by William A. Wulf - "I believe that engineering is a highly creative profession. Research tells us that creativity does not spring from nothing; it is grounded in our life experiences, and hence limited by those experiences. Lacking diversity on an engineering team, we limit the set of solutions that will be considered and we may not find the best, the elegant solution."40 An early example is the invention of the raised dot system for text invented in the 1820's by Louis Braille who was blind. The method of embossed Roman letters was assumed to be the best for the blind until Braille invented his system. The acoustic modem was invented in the 1960's by the deaf man Robert Weitbrecht so that he could use a teletypewriter with his telephone. Today, larger computer technology companies routinely hire employees with disabilities in a variety of capacities. Some of them are part of "accessibility groups" that help make sure that the companies' software is accessible.

Access Challenges For People with Disabilities

The shortage of qualified professionals in computing fields is due in part to the underrepresentation of specific subgroups of Americans, including women, racial/ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities1,14. In particular, individuals with disabilities experience a lower level of career success than those who do not have disabilities2, 19, 38. They are less likely to complete a postsecondary education; less likely to pursue academic studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); and, for those who do, more likely to drop out3, 20, 21,28,29. People with disabilities who are also racial/ethnic minorities and/or females face additional challenges to pursuing STEM careers12,31,34. Although the provision of academic support in postsecondary institutions is increasing, services at institutions nationwide vary greatly and have been found to fall short in helping college graduates with disabilities transition to employment36. However, the success stories of a few individuals with disabilities in computing and other STEM fields4,6,17,37 demonstrate that opportunities do exist for people with disabilities who meet the challenges they encounter. These individuals develop academic, technical, and self-determination skills. They find ways to overcome barriers such as inaccessible curriculum materials, labs, computer-based technology, and electronic resources; inadequate academic supports and access to role models; and low expectations and lack of encouragement from family members and educators.,27,28,33,35

Besides common barriers they all face, those with specific types of disabilities are presented with unique challenges. Students who use sign language face the challenges of other students whose first language is not English in combination with those related to the inability to hear. For students who are blind, access to the printed word, graphic images, and multi-media is a challenge. Physical access and adapted equipment are of concern to those with mobility impairments.

In his keynote address at the 2005 Joint Annual Meeting of broadening participation projects funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), Dr. Larry Scadden, retired scientist and program officer for the NSF Program for Persons with Disabilities (now called Research in Disabilities Education, RDE) identified four issues to address in order for students with disabilities to fully participate in STEM fields—access to technology, access to classrooms and labs, full participation in outside STEM activities, and attitudes of gatekeepers. Blind since childhood, Dr. Scadden charged NSF grantees to be "fully inclusive" by making sure that students with disabilities are recruited into and accommodated within all project activities.

High-tech careers are potentially open to individuals with disabilities because of advancements in assistive technology that provide access to computers. However, inaccessible design of facilities and software, web pages, and distance learning courses continues to erect barriers. For example, content embedded in graphical images must be provided in an accessible text format to be usable by individuals who are blind and using text-to-speech systems; although accessibility guidelines are readily available, many web developers, including those in computing departments, are unaware of the barriers they erect.

AccessComputing: Research to Practice

The National Science Foundation has initiated several projects designed to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in computing fields (see http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=CISE). Funded by this NSF initiative, The Department of Computer Science and Engineering and the DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking and Technology) Center at the University of Washington (UW) lead the Alliance for Access to Computing Careers (AccessComputing). Current partners—Gallaudet University, Microsoft, the three NSF Regional Alliances for Persons with Disabilities in STEM (hosted by the University of Southern Maine, New Mexico State University, and the UW), and SIGACCESS of Association of Computing Machinery (ACM)-and collaborators represent education, industry, government, and professional organizations nationwide.

The goal of AccessComputing, which is directed by the co-authors of this article, is to apply proven practices, based on prior research, in order to increase the participation of people with disabilities in computing careers. Research suggests that activities such as those undertaken by this Alliance will ultimately benefit society by making computing opportunities available to more citizens and enhancing computing fields with the perspectives of people with disabilities. AccessComputing builds on existing stakeholder networks and research-based, proven practices to address these issues.29 The following summaries of some of the AccessComputing activities highlight how this project applies research to practice.

Research-Based Activities For Students with Disabilities

It has been found that individuals with both high interest in computers and positive self-concepts in math and computers are most likely to aspire to IT professions41. Successful interventions with students in order to broaden their participation in STEM fields have been identified by projects for racial/ethnic minorities, women, and people with disabilities, including many funded by the NSF. These interventions include:

1. industry and research internships,
2. bridge programs between academic levels that include hands-on experiences, and
3. mentor and peer support.24

Furthermore, comprehensive programs have been found to be more successful in recruiting and retaining students with disabilities than isolated efforts 2,11,13,15,28,32,37. Since 1992, the DO-IT Center at the University of Washington has offered comprehensive research-based programs that include practices proven successful in increasing the representation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. Overall results have been positive16. Previous projects undertaken by DO-IT and others have found that: (a) people with disabilities are widely dispersed; (b) they face common issues as well as unique challenges related to specific disabilities; (c); programs need to address both academic and non-academic (e.g., self-advocacy) issues; and (d) impact is greatest when motivational activities are combined with ongoing participant support and institutional change.

When DO-IT participants were surveyed to determine the long-term impact of key program components, respondents reported growth in their level of preparation for college and employment and their self-advocacy skills. One reflected that participation in DO-IT "helped me to understand more about myself and the people in the real world. I have learned how to adapt to society without thinking that I am disabled, that I am useless." Another said, "I'm less shy now that I know there are more people out there that are just like me!" Others reported that DO-IT helped them keep their expectations high11.

When parents were asked to what degree participation enhanced their children's lives, in descending order, their responses were interest in college, perception of career options, self-esteem, and self-advocacy skills7. As summarized by one parent, "My son has benefited greatly from the DO-IT program. He was able to realize that many other students had to struggle through school. DO-IT camps allowed students to bond, and the computer networking allowed them to continue to support each other through the year. He did not dwell much on the future until he attended DO-IT Camp. He came home talking about his college plans with confidence that he could manage them. DO-IT has also helped my son get a part-time job during his first year of college...he has achieved a level of independence we never thought possible."

In terms of the computer and Internet activities within DO-IT, parents and scholars both rank their value in developing career/employment skills highest, followed by academic skills, and then social skills7,11.

The comprehensive and integrated activities of AccessComputing refine and apply DO-IT's proven practices to recruit and retain underrepresented groups into computing fields and address both academic and non-academic issues that impact success in college and careers. They are summarized below, along with results of previous research conducted on similar DO-IT activities that support their efficacy in promoting academic and career success for people with disabilities.

College Transition and Bridge Academies and Workshops

Research and Industry Internships

E-Mentoring Community

AccessComputing Network of Faculty, Administrators, and Employers

The Alliance is creating an infrastructure within which collaborators can join in its nation-wide efforts to broaden the participation of people with disabilities in computing fields.

Communities of Practice

Capacity-Building Institutes

Capacity-Building Institutes will draw in other members of relevant stakeholder groups. Participants will meet 1-2 days as a preconference session of a relevant conference. The agenda will include presentations by experts followed by discussions in small groups and group reports. Content from Capacity-Building Institutes will be developed for publication in the AccessComputing Knowledge Base, in journals, as well as in meeting proceedings to inform Communities of Practice, policy makers, and NSF program officers.

AccessComputing Resources

Alliance staff have created a searchable AccessComputing Knowledge Base of frequently asked questions, research-based practices, and case studies. The Knowledge Base provides educators, employers, students, and service providers with strategies for creating more inclusive computing courses programs, where students with disabilities are encouraged to pursue computing fields. It provides a vehicle for other projects to recruit participants, share resources, and publish research results. The Knowledge Base can be found at http://www.washington.edu/accesscomputing/.

Computing Department Accessibility Indicators

Accessibility Indicators that can measure systemic change in postsecondary computing departments that make them more accessible to students, faculty, and staff with disabilities has been drafted by the Alliance staff and has been further validated by members of CoPs. A current list of Computing Department Accessibility Indicators are available for comment at Equal Access: Universal Design of Computing Departments at http://www.washington.edu/accesscomputing/equal_access_csd.html. This content does not provide legal advice. Campus disabled student services offices can also provide assistance in increasing the accessibility of a computing department. In the table below are examples of the Indicators, organized into six broad areas of application.

Universal Design of a Computing Department

Performance Indicator Categories	Examples of Universal Design Performance Indicators
Planning, Policies, and Evaluation Consider diversity issues as you plan and evaluate your facilities and programs.	Are people with disabilities, racial/ethnic minorities, and both men and women young and old students, and other groups included in departmental planning and review processes and advisory committees? Do you have a procedure to assure a timely response to requests for disability-related accommodations?
Facility and Environment Assure physical access, comfort, and safety.	Are all levels of departmental facilities connected via a wheelchair-accessible route of travel? Can at least one public telephone in the department be reached from a seated position?
Support Services Make sure support staff are prepared to work with all students, faculty, and staff.	Do staff members know how to respond to requests for disability-related accommodations such as sign language interpreters? Are staff members aware of issues related to communicating with students of different races/ethnicities and ages and students who have disabilities?
Information Resources Assure that departmental publications and websites welcome a diverse group and that information is accessible to everyone.	Do pictures in departmental publications and on websites include people with diverse characteristics with respect to race, gender, age, and disability? In key publications, does the department include a statement about its commitment to universal access and procedures for requesting disability-related accommodations?. Do departmental web pages adhere to accessibility guidelines or standards?
Computers, Software and Assistive Technology Make technology in computing facilities accessible to everyone.	Is an adjustable-height table available for each type of computer workstation? Can controls on computers, printers, scanners, and other information technology be reached from a seated position.
Computing Courses and Faculty Assure that faculty members deliver courses that are accessible to all students and that accommodations are provided in a timely manner.	Do video presentations used in courses have captions? Audio descriptions? Do faculty members know how to respond to requests for disability-related accommodations such as sign language interpreters? Are faculty members familiar with and do they employ instructional strategies that maximize the learning of all students? (See Equal Access: Universal Design of Instruction at http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/equal_access_udi.html for a checklist of instructional strategies). Is universal/accessible design incorporated into the curriculum of appropriate courses (e.g., requiring software designed by students be accessible to people with disabilities)?

Research in the field of universal design has provided the approach for making a department accessible to all potential students and instructors. "Universal design" is defined by the architect Ron Mace as "the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design" (http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm). It suggests that, rather than designing departmental offerings for the average user, they should be designed for people with a broad range of abilities, disabilities, ages, reading levels, learning styles, native languages, cultures, and other characteristics. More information about applications of universal design can be found in the Universal Design publication at http://www.washington.edu/doit/Resources/udesign.html. In applying universal design to computing departments it is important to keep in mind that individuals involved with the department as students, parents, advisory board members, and visitors may have learning disabilities or visual, speech, hearing, and mobility impairments. All of these individuals should feel welcome and be able to:

• get to facilities and maneuver within them,
• gain the full benefit of information resources and courses, and
• make use of equipment and software.

Although applying universal design minimizes the need for accommodations for students, faculty, and staff with disabilities, it is also important to have a plan in place to respond to additional accommodation requests in a timely manner and to assure that faculty and staff are prepared to work with colleagues and students who have disabilities.

Conclusion

The goal of AccessComputing is to increase the participation of people with disabilities in computing careers. Alliance collaborators apply research-based practices to:

• increase the number of students with disabilities successfully pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees and careers in computing fields.
• increase the capacity of postsecondary computing departments to fully include students with disabilities in computing courses and programs.
• create a nationwide resource to help students with disabilities pursue computing fields and computing educators and employers, professional organizations, and other stakeholders develop more inclusive programs and share effective practices.

The Alliance assures nationwide, long-term impact because it:

• supports local and regional workshops, academies, capacity-building institutes, and internships to recruit and retain students with disabilities into computing fields;
• helps computing departments, professional organizations, and alliances that serve women and racial/ethnic minorities make their activities and resources accessible to students with disabilities;
• creates collaborations among individuals with disabilities, computing professionals, faculty, employers, professional organizations, and disability service providers;
• collects and publishes research and practice data to support the inclusion of people with disabilities in computing fields.

Alliance outcomes benefit society by making computing opportunities available to more citizens, increasing the participation in computing professions and leadership by individuals with disabilities, and enhancing computing fields with the perspectives of people with disabilities. Further information about the Alliance, including how to participate in Communities of Practice, can be found at http://www.washington.edu/accesscomputing./

Acknowledgement

This work is funded by the National Science Foundation as part of the Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC) program of the Directorate for Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering (CISE) (grant #CNS-0540615). Thanks to Joan Burrelli, Division of Science Resources Statistics, for help in compiling some of the data.

References

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). In pursuit of a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Benz, M., Doren, B., & Yavonoff, P. (1998). Crossing the great divide: Predicting productive engagement for young women with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21(1), 3-16.
3. Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62(5), 399-413.
4. Blumenkopf, T., Stern, V., Swanson, A., & Wohlers, D. (Eds.). (1996). Working chemists with disabilities: Expanding opportunities in science. American Chemical Society.
5. Brazier, M., Parry, M., & Fischbach, E. (2000). Blind students: Facing challenges in a college physics course-Leveling the playing field for the visually impaired. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(2), 114-116.
6. Burgstahler, S. (2001). A collaborative model promotes career success for students with disabilities: How DO-IT does it. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(3-4), 209-216.
7. Burgstahler, S. (2002). The value of DO-IT to kids who did it! Exceptional Parent, 32(11), 79-86.
8. Burgstahler, S. (2003). DO-IT: Helping students with disabilities transition to college and careers. National Center on Secondary Education and Transition Services Research to Practice Brief, 2(3), 1-4
9. Burgstahler, S., & Bellman, S. (2005). Perceived benefits of work-based learning: Differences between high school and postsecondary students with disabilities. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Inclusive Education, 2(1), 1-20.
10. Burgstahler, S., & Cronheim, D. (2001). Supporting peer-peer and mentor-protégé relationships on the Internet. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 59-74.
11. Burgstahler, S., & Kim-Rupnow, S. (2004). Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding the value of technology-based support activities on postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 43-56.
12. Canedy, D. (2001, March 25). Troubling label for Hispanics: Girls most likely to drop out. The New York Times.
13. Colley, D. A., & Jamieson, D. (1998). Postschool results for youth with disabilities: Key indicators and policy implications. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 145-160.
14. Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development (September 2000). Land of Plenty, Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering and Technology. Washington, DC.
15. Cunningham, A., Redmond, C., & Merisotis, J. (2003, February). Investing Early: Intervention programs in selected U.S. states. Montreal: Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.
16. DO-IT. (n. d.). DO-IT: Research to practice. Seattle, WA: Author.
17. DO-IT. (2004). DO-IT Snapshots. Seattle, WA: Author.
18. Gilbert, J.E. (2006). Making a case for BPC. Computer, 39(3), 83-86.
19. Harris, L., & Associates. (1998). National Organization on Disability/Harris survey of Americans with disabilities. New York: Author.
20. Henderson, C. (2001). College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
21. Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes (Report No. NCES 1999-187). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
22. IDEAdata. http://www.ideadata.org/arc_toc7.asp#partbCC, Table 1-10.
23. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). What are the barriers to the use of advanced telecommunications for students with disabilities in public schools? (NCES 2000-042). Washington, DC: Author.
24. National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: 2004.
25. National Council on Disability and Social Security Administration. (2000). Transition and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities: Closing the gaps to postsecondary education and employment. Washington, DC: Author.
26. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Earned Doctorates: 2000-2004.
27. National Science Foundation (2001). Programs for persons with disabilities: Regional Alliances for Persons with Disabilities in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education (NSF 01-67).
28. National Science Foundation. (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT): 2003.
30. Office of Disability Employment Policy (2001, November). Improving the availability of community-based services for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
31. Pfeiffer, D., & Finn, J. (1997). The Americans with Disabilities Act: An examination of compliance by state, territorial, and local governments in the USA. Disability and Society, 753-773.
32. Phelps, L. A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 197-226.
33. Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. (1999). Recharting the course: If not now, when?
34. Schmidt-Davis, H., Hayward, B. J., & Kay, H. B. (1999/2000). Basic skills and labor market success: Findings from the VR longitudinal study. American Rehabilitation, 25(3), 11-18.
35. Seymour, E., & Hunter, A. (1998). Talking about disability: The education and work experience of graduates and undergraduates with disabilities in science, mathematics and engineering majors (AAAS Publication No. 98-02S). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
36. Tagayuna, A., Stodden, R., Chang, C., Zeleznik, M. E., & Welley, T. (2005). A two-year comparison of support provision for persons with disabilities in postsecondary education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 13-21.
37. Unger, D., Wehman, P., Yasuda, S., Campbell, L., & Green, H. (2001, March 7-9). Human resource professionals and the employment of persons with disabilities: A business perspective. Paper presented at Capacity Building Institute, University of Hawaii.
38. Wagner, M., & Blackorby, J. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.
39. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker.
40. Wulf, W.A. (2000). How shall we satisfy the long-term educational needs of engineers? Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(4), 593-596.
41. Zarrett, N. R., & Malanchuk, O. (2005). Who's computing? Gender and race differences in young adults' decisions to pursue an information technology career. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 110, 65-84.
42. Zweben, S. (2005). 2004-2005 Taulbee Survey, Ph.D. Production at an All-Time High with More New Graduates Going Abroad; Undergraduate Enrollments Again Drop Significantly. Computing Research News, 18(3).

Copyright © 2006 - 2008 by University of Washington. Permission is granted to copy these materials for educational, noncommercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.