Hutchinson, Nancy
2. Detailed Description – maximum 6 pages
“Essential Skills Training for Workers with Disabilities to Enhance Negotiations for Accommodations”
Purposes
This research program, to be conducted by the Co-operative Education and Workplace Learning (CEWL)
group, will investigate the impact of Essential Skills (ES) training on workers with disabilities who must
negotiate with employers for workplace accommodations, in the face of demands in the New Economy
for increased knowledge and productivity. Workers with disabilities are entitled to have their individual
needs accommodated, short of undue hardship to the organization, in a manner that respects their dignity
and allows them to perform the essential duties of their job (Canadian Human Rights Act, Section 15.2).
Accommodations to meet individual needs may be characterized as (a) structural/environmental, (b)
social, and (c) cognitive (Chappell, Higham, & McLean, 2003). While structural/environmental needs are
well understood and have been well cited in training manuals (e.g., ergonomic design, technological
devices, flex time policies) there is less awareness and action surrounding social and cognitive
accommodations (e.g., Canadian Mental Health Association, http://www.mentalhealthworks.ca/).
This research has five purposes:
1. To describe the role of ES in negotiations between workers with disabilities and employers, which
lead to successful accommodations.
2. To document the role that goal setting and related motivational constructs play when workers with
disabilities use ES to negotiate accommodations.
3. To develop and evaluate training to help workers develop and use ES to negotiate social and cognitive
accommodations with employers.
4. To study how policy recipients (both workers and supervisors) seek to understand and incorporate
legislated requirements for accommodation into their work, and how ES training can encourage
policy implementation.
5. To engage in and evaluate continuous dissemination of findings with workers with disabilities,
employers, and partner agencies.
Rationale
Workplaces in Canada are under pressure to innovate and to remain competitive in the face of
unprecedented knowledge growth (Human Resources Development Canada, 2002b). While the ES are
designed to help Canada meet these demands, Knowledge Matters acknowledges that there has been little
research on how ES training can accommodate workers with disabilities (Human Resources Development
Canada, 2002b, p. 39). Critics warn that knowledge societies are highly susceptible to reinforcing
systemic social inequities (Chisholm, 1999). The proposed research program is intended to counter this
tendency by focusing on workers with learning disabilities (LD) and workers with physical disabilities
(PD). Despite the prominence given to employment equity in reports and legislation practices through the
1980’s and 1990’s (e.g., Government of Canada, 1981, 1995), by the late 1990’s Canadians with
disabilities were half as likely to be employed as those without disabilities (HRDC, 2002a).
Often people with disabilities are unaware of their specific strengths and weaknesses and ill prepared to
negotiate about the need for changes in a job and workplace (Gates, 2000; Gioia & Brekke, 2003); many
need to learn how to participate in this process. Retrospective research suggests that adults with
disabilities who experience success in the workplace report having had clear goals and strong selfadvocacy from an early age (Gerber, Ginsberg, & Reiff, 1992). Because each workplace provides a
unique combination of structural, social, and cognitive demands, we propose to develop a population of
cases (Stake, 2000) of adult workers and high school students participating in co-operative (co-op)
education. While adult workers with disabilities are the primary focus, including young disabled workers
1
Hutchinson, Nancy
in co-op education may facilitate documentation of the dynamic process of negotiation. Within the ES
profiles, we anticipate focusing on essential thinking skills (i.e., problem solving, decision making,
planning job tasks, significant use of memory, and finding information) and continuous learning which
are cognitive in nature. We will also address the ES which are social in nature: working with others and
oral communication.
Related Research
This review of related research focuses on accommodations, goal-setting and related motivational
constructs, and policy analysis.
Accommodations
Although individuals with disabilities are realizing greater access to the workplace and employers and coworkers express willingness to make accommodations (Ochocka, Roth, & Lord, 1994; Unger, 2001),
research suggests that this does not always result in sustained employment and meaningful participation
(Gates, 2000). Fully inclusive employment rests, in part, with disabled employees requesting and work
environments providing accommodations that effectively meet the needs of disabled employees
(Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2001; Holmes, 1993; Pati & Baily, 1995). The percentage of
workers with disabilities who report receiving accommodations has ranged from 2% (Silver, Strehorn, &
Bourke, 1997) to 22% (Greenbaum Graham, & Scales, 1996). Workers suggest that the organizational
climate of some workplaces does not support accommodations (Akabas & Gates, 1991, 1993), while
research indicates that some employers lack knowledge about disabilities and that there is a need for
training programs to help employers and employees negotiate appropriate accommodations (Gates,
Akabas, & Kantrowitz, 1996).
Individuals with disabilities require accommodations unique to their needs and strengths, and workplaces
can be characterized as distinct environments with specific job expectations (Ochocka et al., 1994).
However, recent research on workplace performance and workplace learning emphasizes that two aspects
of ES, the cognitive and the social, are critical to meaningful participation by almost all disabled workers
in almost all contexts (DeMoss, 1995). Minskoff and DeMoss (1994) identified four interrelated skills
necessary for meaningful social interactions within the workplace—verbal communication, nonverbal
communication, social awareness, and social problem solving—that correspond to areas of weakness for
many adults with disabilities. Koch and Payne (1995) describe the social problem solving skills that often
elude employees in entry-level positions. And employers report that they find it more difficult to retain
employees who cannot sustain mutually supportive relationships than those who lack technical skill
(DeMoss, 1995). Many employees with disabilities require assistance to develop the sophisticated social
cognition demanded by today’s workplaces, and it is challenging to generate accommodations for these
social aspects of many workplaces (Payne, 1995).
The cognitive demands of the workplace for ES including problem solving, decision making, and
information management also challenge many workers with disabilities, especially those whose literacy
levels are low (for examples, see Lewe, & MacLeod, 2001). Mikulecky (1995) reports that employees are
increasingly expected to gather unfamiliar information, to enter this information on forms (often on-line),
to monitor quality performance, and to write reports indicating problems, attempted solutions, and
outcomes. While it is tempting to model cognitive accommodations in the workplace on cognitive
accommodations that are effective in schools (e.g., Hutchinson 2002), research suggests that what is
learned in workplaces is dynamic procedural knowledge, while much of what is learned in classrooms is
inert declarative knowledge (Munby et al., 2003). This parallels the differences between the use of
reading materials in workplaces and in school settings. Schools emphasize reading to learn skills, which
2
Hutchinson, Nancy
involve retention of information, whereas, the workplace primarily requires reading to do skills which
involve the accomplishment of tasks (Mikulecky, 1995).
Because accommodation is so important to full participation by disabled workers, the research will
describe the role of social and cognitive ES in negotiating accommodations and will develop training to
enhance these accommodations.
Goal-setting and Other Motivational Constructs
Personal work goals are related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the workforce
(Maier & Brunstein, 2001). Recent research suggests a clear link between goal setting and other
motivational constructs and successful workplace accommodations for workers with LD and with PD.
Two of our recent case studies of adolescents with LD illustrate the importance of goal-setting and
motivational issues to cognitive and social ES in co-op education (Versnel, Hutchinson, Munby, & Chin,
2003). Trudel and Montreuil (1999) demonstrate the importance of motivational constructs in training
programs for VDT users experiencing musculoskeletal and visual problems.
Studies of successful adults with LD and with PD suggest that goal-setting and related motivational issues
play a central role in the workplace. When Gerber et al. (1992) interviewed successful adults with LD, in
a retrospective study, they identified “control” of one’s life as an encompassing theme related to career
success. Control included internal decisions like goal orientation as well as external manifestations like
persistence, coping mechanisms, and social support. Two longitudinal, quantitative studies also found
that the best predictor of workplace success for adults with disabilities was a constellation of motivational
and personal variables, including goal-setting, self-awareness, and social support (Raskind, Goldberg,
Higgins, & Herman, 1999; Spekman, Goldberg, & Herman, 1992). In a study of adults with PD and
nonmalignant pain returning to work, Tan et al. (1997) reported that the individual’s return to work goal
was the best predictor of the return to work outcome. Similar findings, highlighting the importance of
goal setting, were reported by Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff (2000) for a sample of young adults with a
range of disabilities.
How might we train adults with disabilities to set goals, to take charge of their disability experience in the
workplace, and to successfully negotiate accommodations? Gerber et al. (1992) recommend focusing on
four aspects related to goal setting and motivation, all alterable through training: (a) recognition of the
disability; (b) acceptance including disclosure; (c) self-awareness including setting one’s own goals; and
(d) making a conscious decision to take action toward one’s goals. The role of these four aspects in
training may vary with the nature of the disability; for example, because LD are likely to be invisible,
individuals may choose whether or not to disclose the disability. While most physical disabilities are
visible, research suggests that social accommodations are as important as physical accommodations for
successful inclusion of many individuals with PD (Jamieson et al., 2002) and that these social
accommodations are unlikely to be disclosed.
Recognition, the first aspect, refers to individuals with LD acknowledging that processing difficulties
may pervade all aspects of their lives including work (Roffman, 2000), and to individuals with PD
acknowledging that they may need social and cognitive as well as physical accommodations (Jamieson et
al., 2002). Acceptance, the second aspect, includes making conscious decisions about disclosing the full
impact of the disability at work, and assumes that adults understand their rights to accommodations.
However, recent research suggests many adults with disabilities are not informed about their rights in the
workplace (Witte, 2001). Studies report that less than 30% of adults with LD disclose their disability in
the workplace (Greenbaum et al., 1996; Madaus, Foley, McGuire, & Ruban, 2002; Price, Gerber, &
Mulligan, 2003). The primary reason given was fear of discrimination. Self-awareness, the third aspect,
3
Hutchinson, Nancy
involves developing a sense of self, understanding one’s strengths and weaknesses, how one learns, and
what supports are needed as well as setting goals based on this awareness (Greenbaum et al., 1996). The
fourth aspect is the conscious decision to take action toward one’s goals, and includes persistence, finding
an environment in which one can succeed by using one’s strengths, and developing and negotiating ways
to overcome social and cognitive obstacles. Examples of actions taken by workers with disabilities
include using self-regulatory strategies (without negotiating accommodations), setting priorities,
receiving instructions in alternative formats, taking extra time, requesting assistance from supportive coworkers, sharing responsibilities so tasks draw on their strengths, and using proofreaders (Adelman &
Vogel, 1990; Gates, Akabas, & Oran-Sabia, 1998; Madaus et al., 2002). While some workers with
disabilities report using self-regulatory strategies to adjust work experiences themselves, most are not
able to do this. To be successful, most workers with disabilities must learn how to communicate and
advocate about their disabilities, seek supportive co-workers and mentors, and negotiate accommodations
with their employers (Madaus et al., 2002). Successful use of self-regulatory strategies and
accommodations predicts employment satisfaction (Madaus, Ruban, Foley & McGuire, 2003). We
propose to show that training informed by these four aspects of disabilities and using a variety of modes
for this training can help workers and employers to negotiate accommodations.
Policy Research
Our proposed case studies of the implementation of policy on workplace accommodations will describe
the perspectives of employers, workers, and co-workers who are directly affected by the policy (e.g.,
Hutchinson et al., 2001). Such studies contribute to an emerging paradigm of policy analysis—one that
attends to policy conditions and contexts as experienced by policy recipients (Darling-Hammond, 1990).
What is important about a policy like the requirement that employers provide accommodations, aside
from its ambitious goals, is that it is likely to have substantial ripple effects (Price et al., 2003). Policy
analysis has begun to examine how policy recipients seek to understand and incorporate new legislated
rules into their work (Peterson, 1990; Smith, Oczkowski, Macklin, & Noble, 2003). Some investigations
have explored whether the policy whose effects were to be measured had been implemented at all (Cohen,
1990). Researchers argue it is important to ask what other events and conditions in the environment, such
as competing priorities, might support or undermine the intentions of the policy or might have
independent effects on the outcomes (Lehmann & Taylor, 2003).
By understanding the process of implementing policy and its meaning for those asked to do the
implementing, we may understand what has been called “the power of the bottom over the top” (Elmore,
1983). Local leadership is essential to change and policy success and local agencies adapt rather than
adopt policies. Including interview questions about the experience of policy implementation in the case
studies will enable us to report how familiar employers, supervisors, disabled workers, and co-workers
are with the policy, what they interpret the policy to mean for their actions, and what resources guide their
actions. Research suggests individuals fill the gaps in their understanding with what is already familiar to
them and that transformation of beliefs, knowledge, and actions on issues like workplace
accommodations requires considerable experiential confrontation and exploration (e.g., Price et al., 2003).
Our case studies and training in all modes will be informed by and seek to test the validity of four key
ideas that emerge from our analysis of theories and research on policy implementation. These four ideas
are that: (a) policy must be better communicated if it is to be better understood; (b) policy makers must
respond to cumulative effects of constant policy changes; (c) policy makers need to pay attention to the
knowledge of individuals; and (d) change requires investment in training that allows individuals to
grapple with ideas and actions. Our cases will contribute to answering important questions about what we
can do to transform understanding in all perspectives so workplace accommodations work.
4
Hutchinson, Nancy
Theoretical Framework
Our focus on the impacts of cognitive ES training in the workplace will be informed by our recent
research on the role of metacognition ( Munby, et al., 2003) and of epistemological appropriation (Chin,
Steiner Bell, Munby, & Hutchinson, submitted; Hung, 1999) in workplace learning. Our study of the
impacts of social ES training (i.e., working with others, and oral communication) will be informed by
recent research in three fields. These include how workers attain full participation in communities of
practice (Wenger, 1998), how individuals come to hold distributed knowledge with co-workers (Billett,
2001), and how young workers learn the social roles associated with occupation (Colella, 1994; Garavan
& Murphy, 2001; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). We will be guided by both national and international
perspectives on accommodations and disabilities including Wright (2001) and HRDC (2002a). Our
theoretical framing of goal setting owes much to recent work on self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000)
and on Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent & Brown, 1996). In studying policy implementation from
the perspective of clients on whom policy has impact, we will follow the examples of Darling-Hammond
(1990) and Hutchinson, Freeman and Steiner Bell (2002) in assembling what Stake (2000) calls a
population of cases each centred on a worker with LD or PD.
Research Plan and Methods
The underlying thrust of this research is to mobilize valid training approaches and information about ES
needed by workers with disabilities as they engage in negotiations for accommodation; and all phases of
the research activities support this endeavour. Our approach to knowledge transfer embodies dynamic and
interactive uses of ICT, both for data collection and for e-learning, because our web design encourages
stakeholders to actively participate in knowledge production and use.
The principal method for data collection is case study. Case studies are known to provide rich and
detailed information just as is required by a study of authentic workplace accommodations. On their own,
cases may not appear to offer wide applicability, but this limitation is minimized by Stake’s (2000)
approach to assembling “a population of cases,” in which each case probes deeply into the workplace and
accommodations experiences of one worker with physical disabilities or learning disabilities. The
phenomena at the center of case studies are thought of as organic and systemic, characterized by purpose
and self. In each case, the researcher purposively chooses to study one among many, gradually
assembling a population, recognizing that a case cannot be understood without knowledge about other
cases. Stake (2000) argues that we must design each study to optimize understanding of the case rather
than generalization beyond the case. As the population of cases accumulates, comparisons become
meaningful and patterns emerge. Because one must focus on the features important to understanding each
case (Stake, 2000), the case studies will be informed by an array of theoretical frameworks, all
emphasizing accommodations, goal setting, and other motivational constructs, as described above.
In the first year of the research, the team will initially undertake five case studies, four in Ontario, and one
in Nova Scotia. Sampling will be by “critical-case method” (McMillan & Schumacher 2001, p. 402),
selecting cases that illustrate the phenomena of negotiation for accommodations dramatically. The sample
will be drawn from a sampling frame, identified with the assistance of our research partners, of sites that
exemplify the range of issues encountered by workers with disabilities as they negotiate accommodations.
Data for each case will be collected from all case participants using ethnographic observation and
interview techniques (e.g., Patton, 2002). Analyses of case study data will follow conventional
approaches used in qualitative research—thematic analyses, constant comparison, discrepant case
analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Munby, 2003).
These initial critical cases will be used to develop three further data sources, each relying upon web
technology: critical-incident cases, multiple-perspectives cases, and case stories. Participants in these
5
Hutchinson, Nancy
three forms of data collection will be identified with the assistance of our partners, using listservs,
newsletters, links from their websites, etc. Critical-incident cases are cases contributed by workers in
response to on-line streaming video depicting of each of the initial critical cases: the videos will be
accessed on the web and elicit other cases authored by workers. These responses to the depiction of each
initial critical case provide the further data on the role of ES in negotiations. Also, they serve to extend
the population of cases, so enhancing the validity of the research. The web page eliciting these cases will
provide users with clear instructions about the kinds of information they can write on the web to
designated (and confidential) spaces.
Multiple-perspectives cases (e.g., Hutchinson, et al., 2001) are responses from the perspectives of
different stakeholders (workers, supervisors, human resource personnel) to an instance of negotiation that
the research group mounts on a website. These responses provide a range of “voices” that show how ES
can be used to resolve conflicts within negotiations. The Case story is an interactive composite, a staged
story involving actors to protect anonymity (http://cloe.on.ca/CLOEpresentNov26Antonia.ppt). Presented
on the web (video), the story encourages the reader to elaborate on the case story from their own
experiences. One interactive case story is to be designed and presented each year.
The information resulting from responses to these forms of data collection allows the research team again
to strengthen its population of cases. In this way, initial answers to the research purposes are identified in
the first year. In addition, the responses, as they emerge, are incorporated into the team’s knowledge of
training in ES for those with disabilities. As a result, the team will design training modules available in elearning modes that are compliant with accessibility issues (e.g., Hanley, 2001). Initial client users will
provide feedback on these learning objects, and may become subjects of further critical-incident and
multiple-perspective cases.
This research plan is iterative. As evaluative information is received, so the e-learning is modulated in
response, and further cases can result. The iteration is more pronounced in the second year of the study.
Five more initial critical cases will be collected, leading to further data collection using critical-incident
cases, multiple-perspectives cases, and a case story that depict successful negotiations following the use
of our learning objects. The resulting data will inform the revisions to the training materials.
Over two years, this iterative strategy will produce: (a) data that can address the five purposes of the
study, with special attention to the prescriptive elements of our 3rd purpose: namely, training that uses
social and cognitive ES in negotiating accommodations; and (b) training materials for face-to-face and elearning instruction in social and cognitive ES in which we can have confidence. We intend apply for
funding to take part in the workshops available only to researchers successful in the current competition.
Implications
The proposed research focuses on the impact of essential skills training in the workplace, the first of the
two research grant themes. We have directed our studies to ES skills training for workers with disabilities
and those with whom they negotiate accommodations because this is an area in which there has been little
research to date. Our research methods emphasize continuous mobilization of the knowledge created in
conjunction with our partners and with our research participants. In the past, CEWL (Munby, Hutchinson,
& Chin) has conducted multiple-perspective case study research and Hutchinson has developed and
evaluated instruction for career development of persons with disabilities (Pathways; Hutchinson &
Freeman, 1994). The new co-applicants, Versnel and Stockley, bring expertise in accommodations from
the perspective of rehabilitation therapy and expertise in e-learning, respectively, to an increasingly
interdisciplinary research group. We are confident that not only will we contribute through the creation of
multi-modal ES training, but that our use of client contributions to case stories will be an asset to the
growing research literature on case study method.
6