Disability and Postsecondary Fieldwork Experiences in the Natural Sciences: A Systematic Review
Saved in:
| Title: | Disability and Postsecondary Fieldwork Experiences in the Natural Sciences: A Systematic Review |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Ariel Chasen (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2025 62(4):1006-1039. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 34 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | National Science Foundation (NSF) |
| Contract Number: | 2347045 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Students with Disabilities, Undergraduate Students, STEM Education, Field Instruction, Barriers, Access to Education, Natural Sciences, College Science |
| DOI: | 10.1002/tea.21989 |
| ISSN: | 0022-4308 1098-2736 |
| Abstract: | We present a systematic review of 29 empirical studies on disability and fieldwork in natural science, postsecondary educational settings. Undergraduate students with disabilities are underrepresented in STEM, and disciplines requiring major field components are some of the least diverse, at least in part because fieldwork has been traditionally viewed as hard, physical, and masculine. Disability Studies in Education (DSE) frames the research questions, inclusion criteria and results. Studies were coded by disability model used, barriers and strategies to accessibility in field science, and meaningful involvement of persons with disabilities in research on fieldwork education. Although most studies asserted a view of disability as a social, cultural, and political phenomenon, some deficit language and interpretations persisted. Few studies included author positionality, and even fewer disclosed author disability status. The main instructional recommendations emphasize flexibility and adaptability, presuming student competence and making small-scale changes consistently over time. Multiple studies emphasize the need for proactive planning, including robust contingency plans, and explaining how these plans can negate the need for complex modification. Twenty-four additional non-empirical studies are identified as resources for discipline-specific guides and checklists for inclusive fieldwork. We conclude that important steps are being taken to investigate and critique barriers to fieldwork participation for students with disabilities, but there is still much work to be done in addressing systemic barriers beyond the control of individual instructors. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1463286 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | We present a systematic review of 29 empirical studies on disability and fieldwork in natural science, postsecondary educational settings. Undergraduate students with disabilities are underrepresented in STEM, and disciplines requiring major field components are some of the least diverse, at least in part because fieldwork has been traditionally viewed as hard, physical, and masculine. Disability Studies in Education (DSE) frames the research questions, inclusion criteria and results. Studies were coded by disability model used, barriers and strategies to accessibility in field science, and meaningful involvement of persons with disabilities in research on fieldwork education. Although most studies asserted a view of disability as a social, cultural, and political phenomenon, some deficit language and interpretations persisted. Few studies included author positionality, and even fewer disclosed author disability status. The main instructional recommendations emphasize flexibility and adaptability, presuming student competence and making small-scale changes consistently over time. Multiple studies emphasize the need for proactive planning, including robust contingency plans, and explaining how these plans can negate the need for complex modification. Twenty-four additional non-empirical studies are identified as resources for discipline-specific guides and checklists for inclusive fieldwork. We conclude that important steps are being taken to investigate and critique barriers to fieldwork participation for students with disabilities, but there is still much work to be done in addressing systemic barriers beyond the control of individual instructors. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0022-4308 1098-2736 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/tea.21989 |
