Understanding Disability Services Toward Improving Graduate Student Support
Murtaza Tamjeed, Vinita Tibdewal, Madison Russell, Michael McQuaid, Tae Oh, Kristen Shinohara · 2021 · ASSETS '21: The 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3441852.3471231
Summary
While approximately 19.5% of U.S. undergraduate students have disabilities, only about 7% of graduate students self-identify as disabled, and just 5.5% of computing doctorate recipients report disabilities. This steep drop-off suggests systemic barriers in transitioning from undergraduate to graduate programs. Tamjeed et al. investigated how university disability services offices accommodate graduate students through two complementary methods: a critical content analysis of disability services websites from 18 top U.S. institutions (analyzing 736 pages of content through a lens of ableism), and semi-structured interviews with 17 disability services staff from 14 institutions. The websites were selected from top graduate engineering and computing programs, scored on an "Accommodation Information Score" ranging from 7 to 26 based on the availability and accessibility of information across 14 categories. Staff participants included directors, assistant directors, access specialists, and testing coordinators, with caseloads ranging from 150 to 900 students per staff member. The research focused specifically on institutional aspects — website content and staff decision-making — rather than student experiences or legal compliance, examining how policies and their interpretation by staff create barriers for disabled graduate students. The study was conducted during 2020-2021, with COVID-19 impacting documentation requirements and accommodation delivery.
Key findings
The research revealed two overarching themes. First, disability services offices maintained different policies and attitudes based on disability visibility: students with visible disabilities (blindness, wheelchair use) were often exempt from documentation requirements, while students with invisible disabilities faced additional scrutiny — with some staff explicitly framing this as protecting against students who might "game the system." Staff also avoided providing assistive technology support, describing it as too complex and time-consuming, often redirecting students to IT departments or telling them to find solutions independently. Faculty resistance was a persistent challenge: some faculty denied accommodation requests, did not respond to communications, or pushed back against accommodation letters, with older faculty who began teaching before legal mandates being especially resistant. One faculty member told a disabled engineering student to "just drop out." Second, accommodation decisions systematically disadvantaged graduate students. Research-related activities — reading large volumes of material, attending conferences, using specialized software — were frequently categorized as "personal study" and denied accommodation. Staff admitted they did not differentiate between graduate and undergraduate needs, offering the same standard accommodations (extended test time, note-takers) that do not address graduate-level activities like research, lab work, or conference attendance. "More time" for graduate students meant extending a program (with no additional funding), not adding minutes to a test. Graduate students also avoided registering with disability services out of fear that faculty advisors learning of their disability would damage their academic relationships, letters of recommendation, and career prospects.
Relevance
This paper exposes a critical gap in institutional support that directly affects the diversity pipeline in computing and STEM fields. The finding that disability services offices are fundamentally structured around undergraduate experiences — with policies, staff expertise, and accommodation catalogs all oriented toward coursework rather than research — has immediate practical implications for universities seeking to improve disability inclusion. The recommendations are actionable: websites should be redesigned from an anti-ableist perspective following AHEAD standards; graduate-specific accommodation strategies should be developed that cover research activities, conferences, and assistive technology for personal devices; documentation policies should be equitable across visible and invisible disabilities; and staff should receive training in assistive technology rather than deflecting technical requests. For the accessibility field specifically, this research highlights the structural ableism embedded in the very institutions tasked with supporting disabled students — where the gatekeepers of accommodation simultaneously advocate for students and police their legitimacy. The finding that graduate students fear registering with disability services due to career consequences points to a culture problem that extends well beyond policy into the social fabric of academia.
Tags: higher education · disability services · graduate students · ableism · accommodations · invisible disability · institutional barriers · computing education
Standards referenced: ADA · Section 504 · AHEAD