Disability in Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM)
Karl S. Booksh
Missy Postlewaite
Lea Vest
Outline
• A bit about myself
• Provocative (hopefully) interpretation of
statistics regarding students with disabilities in
STEM
• Introduce panelists
– There background and views
• Open discussion
Short CV
• Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University
Delaware (2005)
– Prof. Arizona State University (1998)
• National Science Foundation (NSF), Committee on
Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering
• Chair, American Chemical Society, Committee on
Chemists with Disabilities
• P.I., Summer Research Experience for
Undergraduates (REU) aimed at chemists with
disabilities
Short Bio – Disability Perspective
•
•
•
•
Brother – AVM at age 9
Self – broken neck at age 19
Wife – cerebral palsy
Twin boys
– One with ADHD
– Both being tested for LD
• Been active with students since undergrad
– Parents, Inc. and Easter Seals in Alaska
– DO-IT at Univ. Washington
Personal Perspective
Failure to Adequately
Serve Persons with
Disabilities in STEM
History of Disability in Academic
Science
• Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the
only country which never persecuted the jews.
Do you know that? No. And do you know why?
He frowned sternly on the bright air.
• Why, sir? Stephen asked, beginning to smile.
• Because she never let them in, Mr. Deasy said
solemnly
James Joyce in Ulysses
Academic Distribution of Disabilities in STEM
1% of STEM doctorates (2008) (1)
7% Population 16 – 20 (1)
13% Population 18- 44 (2)
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Agricultural Sciences
Phys. and Astronomy
Environmental Sciences
Math and Stats.
Computer Science
Psychology
Sociology
Engineering
76
23
23
13
8
14
22
74
83
50
Postdoctoral Associates suppressed by NSF (1)
13% Population 20 – 65 (1)
Increasing representation with age
1. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and
Engineering, 2009. NSF 09-305.
8
Session 5
Baseline Data on Students with
Disabilities
• 8.6% total school population under IDEA
– 13.8% public school attendees
• 7% population between 16 and 21
• 13% population between 21 and 65
• Interested in STEM fields at same rate as
students without disabilities
– In college: 21.7% v. 23.1%
– In graduate school: 20.3% v. 21.3%
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and
Engineering, 2009. NSF 09-305.
The Condition of Education 2007 (NCES 2007064), National Center for Education Statistics, 2007.
No change in relative STEM Doctoral
Attainment since ADA
Percent Citizen or Permanent Resident
of U.S. Doctorates
6.0
5.0
Hispanic = +0.17 % per year
4.0
Black = +0.16 % per year
3.0
Disabilities = +0.009 % per year
2.0
1.0
Native American = +0.011 % per year
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and
Engineering, various years with data from NSF on US Citizens w/ disabilities.
Our (Poorly) Hidden Biases Cause Problems for Others
Schema
Pogo Possum
Faculty prefer to hire themselves
Gender
Race
Ethnicity
Thought process
Work habits
Shared beliefs
Career trajectory
Solo status / Tokenism
Session 5
Stereotype Threat
11
Education Path Discrepancies
2-Year v. 4-Year College
w/ disability 47% v. 42%
w/o disability 42% v. 47%
Full-time v. Part-time
w/ disability 58.2% v. 41.8%
w/o disability 63.4% v. 38.6%
Graduate Students < 24-years old
w/ disability 7.5%
w/o disability 17.6%
Returning students
Retraining post disability
Leave of absence for illness
Military Commitments
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and
Engineering, 2009. NSF 09-305.
Session 5
12
The Matthew Effect
Matthew 13:12 For whoever has, to him more shall be
given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not
have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
“The Matthew Effect in Science”, Science 159: 56-63 (1968)
The more accomplished scientist gets credit, even if lesser contribution
Top universities recruit people with recognized successes (awards)
Receiving small awards impacts receiving bigger awards
Awards tend to go to people from top universities
Same Schema in deciding nominations!
R.K. Merton
RA supported graduate students
w/ disability
16.4%
w/o disability
24.4%
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women,
Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, 2009. NSF 09-305.
Session 5
13
Civil Rights and/or Jobs Issue
• Vicious cycle
– Not attaining educational goals 
– Under- or unemployment 
– Lack of role-models and avatars
• March 2013 Dept. of Labor statistics
– Labor force participation: 20.7% v. 68.7%
– Unemployment: 13.0% v. 7.4%
• Salary gap in S&E
– 4% younger than 29 years old
– 13% for 40 to 49 years old
• Dept. of Commerce
– Predicts 17% increase in STEM jobs 2008 – 2018
– 2/3 require college degree
– Verses 9% and 1/3 for non-STEM
Daughtry, D., J. Gibson, and A. Abels, Mentoring Students and Professionals With Disabilities. Professional Psychology-Research and Practice,
2009. 40(2): p. 201-205
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and
Engineering, 2009. NSF 09-305
Langdon, D., G. McKittrick, D. Beede, B. Khan, and M. Doms, STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future, E.a.S.A. US Depatment of Commere, 2011.
Lack of Programs to Support Students with
Disabilities in Postsecondary Education
• 2010 Federal STEM Education Inventory Data
Set on broadening participation
– All federal agencies with outreach
– $397.8M to ‘Institutional Capacity’ or
‘Postsecondary STEM’
• $378.3M to underrepresented minorities
• $19.6M to students with disabilities
• 19:1 ratio
Sampling of Biggest Programs
•
•
•
•
NSF LSAMP (~$45M 2010 budget)
NIH RISE (~$24M 2010 budget)
NIH MARC U-STAR (~$21M 2010 budget),
NOAA Educational Partnership with Minority Serving
Institutions (~$15M 2010 budget),
• NASA University Research Centers for minority serving
institutions (~$14M 2010 budget),
• DOE HBCU STEM Research Workforce Development
Program (~$9M 2010 budget)
• NSF Research on Disability Education program (~$ 7 M
2010 budget)
– ~35% of available federal funds
‘Focus’ Program Funding (in $M)
Program
Focus
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
Fy 11
ADVANCE
Women
19.9
19.5
16.6
20.1
21.7
21.0
19.8
18.0
AGEP
UM
15.0
14.6
15.3
15.9
17.2
16.7
16.7
9.8
BPC
UM
n/a
14.2
13.5
14.0
14.0
14.0
8.0
8.0
CREST
UM
15.6
17.8
18.8
25.0
30.4
30.3
30.4
24.2
HBCU-UP
UM
25.3
25.7
27.9
29.7
31.1
32.1
31.9
31.9
LSAMP
UM
35.6
36.1
38.1
40.5
42.5
44.6
45.6
45.6
RDE
Dis
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.9
6.9
6.9
6.5
6.5
GSE
Women
9.9
9.7
9.9
10.1
11.4
11.6
10.4
10.5
TCUP
UM
9.2
10.8
10.4
12.8
13.4
13.4
13.3
13.3
135.5
153.7
155.9
174.0
188.6
190.6
182.6
167.8
TOTAL
FY 12 (est)
‘Vicious Cycle’
• How are the academic role models faring?
• Observational data
– I don’t know another chemists at a R1 university
who went through undergrad w/ a disability
• Statistical data from NSF
Percent PI on Submitted Proposals
NSF Percent PI on Submitted Proposals
4.5
4
3.5
y = 0.0717x - 140.2
3
Black
2.5
Hispanic
2
y = 0.0467x - 91.551
1.5
1
y = -0.0433x + 88.191
0.5
0
2002
Disabilities
2004
2006
2008
Year
2010
2012
2014
Percent PI on NSF Awards
NSF Percent PI on Funded Proposals
5
4
3
y = 0.05x - 96.833
2
1
0
2000
Black
Hispanic
Disabilities
y = 0.025x - 48.178
y = -0.025x + 51.333
2005
2010
Year
2015
NSF Relative Funding Rates
Group
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
All
23.7%
23.4%
24.6%
25.7%
25.1%
32.3%
23.4%
21.7%
Female
25.1%
25.5%
26.2%
27.1%
27.1%
33.9%
25.1%
22.6%
Male
23.8%
23.2%
24.7%
25.9%
24.9%
32.5%
23.5%
22.0%
Minority
23.4%
23.1%
24.5%
25.5%
24.3%
30.2%
22.5%
21.4%
Disability
23.0%
20.9%
24.7%
23.2%
24.3%
31.7%
19.8%
19.7%
Female
All
Male
Female
x
All
>99.9
x
Male
>99.9
equiv
x
Minority >99.9
>95
>95
x
Disabil
>99
>99
>90
>99.9
11.679
Minority Disabil
tcrit 90
1.415
7.779
7.478
6.497
tcrit 95
1.895
-1.055
2.620
3.301
tcrit 99
2.998
2.694
3.401
tcrit 99.9
4.785
1.629
d.f.
x
7
PI Success
• Convolution with university size?
• Convolution with career stage?
• Lack of mentoring?
– NIH study on AA PIs indicates 5% lower funding
rate due to lack of mentoring
Only 3 Active Professional Societies
• American Advancement for Science and
Engineering
– Project on Science, Technology and Disability
• American Chemical Society
– Committee on Chemists with Disabilities
• American Psychological Society
– Committee on Disability Issues in Psychology
Where are the Role Models?
• Postdocs with Disabilities in pipeline?
– NIH will fund but few apply.
• Faculty at R1 Universities who have
successfully navigated the system?
– Willing to add outreach to research and teaching
(and home-life)?
• Educators at all levels who can see past
‘disabilities’?
Why are We Failing?
• Lack of financial support
– Committing funds sends a message of priorities
• Need effort to focus at start of academic career
– Losing students after transitions
• Identity
– People primarily identify by race/gender, not disability
status
• Lack data
– To track, understand, and make compelling arguments
• ??
Transitions and Disclosure
• 28% of IEP students disclose disability at
postsecondary level
• Disconnect between disclosure protocol at
K12 vs. postsecondary
Support Services
K-12
• All support integrated under
IDEA
University
• Must reapply as adult
• Support services
fragmented at federal,
state, and local levels
• Must anticipate and
articulate needs
• Needs to occur before
classes start
Association of University Centers on
Disabilities (AUCD)
• Self-determination should be the foundation
for transition planning
• Transition should be viewed through a cultural
lens
• Interagency collaboration is essential to
effective transition
• Transition planning should include all the
perspectives, disciplines, and organizations
that will impact the transitioning student
Panelists
Questions and Discussion