Content uploaded by Vera Dolan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vera Dolan on Feb 22, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tqse20
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20
‘…but if you tell anyone, I’ll deny we ever met:’ the
experiences of academics with invisible disabilities
in the neoliberal university
Vera L. B. Dolan
To cite this article: Vera L. B. Dolan (2021): ‘…but if you tell anyone, I’ll deny we ever met:’ the
experiences of academics with invisible disabilities in the neoliberal university, International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2021.1885075
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2021.1885075
Published online: 22 Feb 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
‘…but if you tell anyone, I’ll deny we ever met:’the
experiences of academics with invisible disabilities in the
neoliberal university
Vera L. B. Dolan
School of Education, Northcentral University, San Diego, CA, USA
ABSTRACT
In the contemporary academy, scholars are expected to deliver highly
measurable outcomes in order to build positive reputations for them-
selves and their institutions. The disclosure of any form of disability,
within academe’s predominantly ableist culture, risks raising concerns
about a faculty member’s professional competence to achieve expected
results. This article is derived from a doctoral study based on qualitative
interviews with 16 professors who self-identify as being invisibly dis-
abled. The findings point to a pervasive culture of ableism and disability
avoidance in the neoliberal academy. Participants discuss the often-
negative impact of disability in their professional lives, which can be
exacerbated by intersecting dimensions of differentness attached to
their self-identities. The results of this study suggest that for faculty
members who disclose an impairment, hoping to have their needs
accommodated, the social response within the academy may be inimi-
cal, regardless of what policy or employment law requires of institu-
tional administrators. This is clearly the reason why many participants
say they only disclose if it seems absolutely necessary, even though
they provide ample evidence that their differentness need not hamper
their performance or their contribution to overall productivity.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 18 April 2020
Accepted 18 November 2020
KEYWORDS
Neoliberal universities;
higher education; ableism;
performativity; faculty with
disabilities; disabil-
ity avoidance
Introduction
What happens when a professor has some form of invisible differentness that, if detected, would
be considered a disability and therefore a potential liability to their reputation? In the contem-
porary academy, professors who disclose any form of impairment risk raising concerns about
their fitness to perform their jobs (Price, Salzer, O’Shea, & Kerschbaum, 2017). Given the negativ-
ity that permeates the disability discourse in Western cultures (Dorfman, 2017), including within
the scholarly community, it is all too easy to infer that differentness will be equated with inept-
ness or inferiority, and may even be seen as threatening (Donnelly, 2016).
Higher education has become commoditized. The traditional acquisition of knowledge has
been reshaped by the neoliberal approach to governance embraced by more and more learning
institutions (Giroux, 2012). Academics are expected to deliver measurable outcomes from their
work, building positive reputations among their peers and helping to generate more revenues
ß2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Vera L. B. Dolan vera.dolan@alum.utoronto.ca,vdolan@ncu.edu School of Education, Northcentral
University, San Diego, CA, USA
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2021.1885075
for their institutions (Wanyenya & Lester-Smith, 2015). Professors’intellectual capabilities are
regularly subject to new kinds of tests in which only those who meet quantifiable standards of
performance can combat the prospect of their own obsolescence.
This article derives from a doctoral research study surfacing the narratives of academics
(myself included) who self-identify as having some form of invisible disability. This term, accord-
ing to the Invisible Disabilities Association (2016), refers to any ‘physical, mental or neurological
condition that limit a person’s movements, senses, or activities that is invisible to the onlooker’
(‘What is an invisible disability’section, 1). More specifically, in the discussion that follows, invis-
ible disability refers to a mental, cognitive or physical impairment that is not easily detectable by
an observer. This is a crucial distinction when we are examining the impact of disability in a pro-
fession that considers intellect to be a person’s most valuable asset. The experiences shared by
the professors in this study provide compelling evidence of their competence, effectiveness, and
dexterity on the job—regardless of invisible differentnesses, which, if disclosed, could prevent
them from advancing their scholarly careers and might lead to their unwarranted alienation from
the academy.
The context of this study
In 2016, the U.S. Invisible Disabilities Association stated that 74% of Americans have some kind
of impairment or disorder that does not require tangible devices or prosthetics; in other words,
because of their ‘normal’appearance, these individuals are perceived to be healthy. Invisible dis-
abilities can vary widely in their attributes and underlying causes, with some relating to how
individuals acquire and process information. According to the Learning Disabilities Association of
Ontario (2018), ‘estimates of the incidence rate of [learning disabilities] range as high as 10% or
more of the population’(‘Summary of LD Statistics’section, 1). Other invisible disabilities may
reflect what Price (2014) calls ‘impairments of the mind’(p. 9). WHO (2015) stated that there are
at least 350 million individuals on the planet who have been diagnosed with depression; suicides
occur about every 40 s. Chronic physical conditions can also be invisible. For example, an analysis
of the 2016 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data cited by Dahlhamer et al. (2018) indi-
cated that roughly 20% of American adults suffer from chronic pain, of which 8% are consid-
ered severe.
Given the widespread statistical evidence within the general population, it would not seem
unreasonable to find a similar incidence of invisible disability in academe. But evidence to sup-
port this conjecture is scarce. Price (2014) pointed out that university faculty are often dealing
with chronic stress, which inevitably has negative consequences to their health. And yet, as Price
et al. (2017) contended in a subsequent study, university and college faculty members rarely
report having invisible disabilities, particularly those related to mental health. Moreover, even if
there were sufficient quantitative data to confirm the incidence of invisible disabilities among
scholars, to my knowledge, few narratives have conveyed the subjective experience—what it
feels like—to have an invisible disability in the academy.
The seed of this study
My interest in the lives of academics with invisible disabilities was sparked by a fortuitous
encounter with a professor at a social function early in my graduate student years. As we
launched into an animated conversation, mainly on topics of scholarly interest, I began to notice
that my interlocutor, even though everything she said made complete sense, would rarely finish
her sentences. I observed her hesitations and unfinished thoughts with interest, because they
were very familiar: she sounded a lot like me. I too have a tendency to skip quickly from one
partial sentence to another, as if I am in a constant race with my brain to see who can get to
2 V. L. B. DOLAN
the point first. My tendency has a medical diagnosis: Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD), accompanied by anxiety disorder.
The speech pattern of the professor at the party intrigued me: Could she actually be like me?
Nonsense—how could she? After all, she was a well-established scholar! Nevertheless, I could
not stop myself (impulsivity being another ‘symptom’of my affliction) from blurting out: ‘You
have ADHD, don’t you?’The change in her expression suggested a mix of indignation, bemuse-
ment and, perhaps, a hint of relief. After a brief pause, though, she said simply: ‘Indeed, I do
have ADHD. But if you ever tell anyone, I’ll deny we ever met.’
It was a pivotal moment in my academic journey. This professor seemed to be telling me
that, in order to function in the academy, she had to keep her differentness invisible. But what, I
wondered, drove her to have such a visceral reaction to my ‘accusation’? Why was it so critical
to conspicuously shut me down? And what was behind her apparently deep-rooted fear of dis-
closure? The incredulity I felt on learning that an established scholar shared my disability was
rooted in the common discursive construction of faculty members in higher education: they
must be intellectually flawless, as surely no ‘diseased’mind (Mat
e, 2012) would be allowed to
remain in academe. Yet even in my moment of disbelief, the seed was planted for my thesis.
Theoretical framework
While the works of Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman were especially strong influences in the
development of this postmodern study, my understanding of the social aspect of disabilities in
general—both visible and non-visible—gained an immeasurable boost as I became more deeply
acquainted with the ideas of scholars such as L. J. Davis, Garland-Thomson, Charmaz,
Shakespeare and Price. Even more emphatically, the views of Bolt (2016) shaped my perspective
on how strongly disability avoidance is promoted in the realm of higher education. But most
importantly, the concept of ableist performativity, inspired by Judith Butler’s gender performativ-
ity theory, helped me considerably in anchoring my study. At the same time, my analysis pointed
to the argument that neoliberal discourses, given their ubiquity in today’s universities, set the
context for how the competence of professors is assessed.
Neoliberal university governance and disability
Wanyenya and Lester-Smith (2015) observed that, in view of globalization and neoliberal inter-
ests, postsecondary higher education institutions, ‘especially those that are publicly funded, …
must rapidly engage in activities to locate and secure new revenue sources’(p. 93). As a result,
students, faculty members and staff must all meet high standards of excellence in order to
remain in the institution’s good graces. According to Lolich (2011), people are only recognized
when they add economic value to their institutions. In the case of professors, performance must
meet high standards, particularly when it comes to serving the needs of students (Taylor, 2017).
Faculty members have a critical responsibility to help their institutions remain competitive and
‘worthy’of student enrollments, and to obtain financial support from the public and private sec-
tors. Faculty members gain recognition and respect by demonstrating their ‘ability to perform to
an externally given set of performance indicators’(Dent & Whitehead, 2002, p. 2). In other words,
current norms of academia call for a ceaseless pursuit of quantifiable results that will help institu-
tions remain competitive (Frankham, 2017).
In the face of these performance-driven and ableist values—and also what Bolt (2016) sees as
a state of disability avoidance in academia, in which there is hardly any acknowledgement or
appreciation for how disabling neoliberal scholarly demands can be—it seems critically import-
ant to understand why some academics choose to reveal an invisible disability, and why others
do not. Bolt (2016) accounted for such avoidance by observing that ‘recognising the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 3
foundational achievements, ideas, knowledge, influence, experience, and/or authority of those of
us who identify or are labelled as disabled proves profoundly difficult for some non-disabled col-
leagues, as though a fundamental order would be disrupted’(p. 2). Moreover, Brown and Leigh
(2018) found that when neoliberal governance leads to a reduction in tenured positions and a
shift toward contract faculty, the tendency to hide one’s impairment increases. Expectations
ingrained in managerialism silence those with disabilities, and competitive behavior is normalized
(M€
uller & de Rijcke, 2017). Early and mid-career academics may feel pressured to conceal
any struggles related to their disabilities because they operate in a scholarly environment that
has little if any tolerance for performers who—due to the negative connotation attributed to
non-normates (Garland-Thomson, 2006)—are deemed incapable of meeting the institution’s
quality standards.
The main purpose of this study, therefore, was to promote an appreciation for the experien-
ces of disabled faculty members. Its principal question had two dimensions: What are the career
experiences of academics with invisible disabilities? And what impact does disability have on
their professional standing and progress?
Disability and the academy
Price (2014) contended that scholars appear to have strong reasons for being unwilling to dis-
cuss the presence of disability in their lives. This hesitation to ‘come out’seems justifiable, given
that the academy’s prevailing cultural values reflect the belief that keen intelligence and the abil-
ity to reason can only intersect with a ‘healthy’mind. As a result, someone with a cognitive dis-
ability may hesitate to reveal an impairment that implies their ‘very organ of insight and
thought’(Mat
e, 2012, p. 2) is not functioning according to the standards of normalcy. Academe
tends to be particularly hostile toward faculty members with psychological and learning disabil-
ities (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). I can certainly attest to that: although I openly discuss
my own medical diagnoses, still, the discomfort I cause among even some of my most generous
peers is almost palpable. They fear that disclosure may lead to my no longer being taken ser-
iously as an academic. I certainly appreciate their concern. However, as with the use of euphe-
misms to address disability
1
, hiding my own may only extend the stigma. Therefore, I will not
stop talking about it—and may find, as neoliberal universities increasingly champion inclusivity,
that the academy’s negative reaction to disability disclosure is gradually replaced by acceptance
(or at least a cynical sense of relief that people like me will help to meet diversity-related quo-
tas). For Mitchell (2016), acceptance is challenging for many institutions:
[E]fforts to include disability studies and disabled people at institutions of Higher Education is an awkward
one—a process …that proves purposefully insufficient due to a profound reluctance to achieve results
that might meaningfully encounter the fleshy realization of such a mission. To openly include disability
rather than avoid the messy materiality it offers, universities would have to drastically reconceive of their
missions as training grounds for the professions of normalcy. (p. 9)
Brown and Leigh (2018) argued that the concern surrounding disclosure is particularly rele-
vant when the neoliberal academy only tolerates job performance that meets the expectations
implicit in its ableist and performativity-centered policies, procedures and institutional culture.
Indeed, Titchkosky (2003), after publicly revealing her dyslexia, described been seen as ‘lazy, for-
getful, confusing and confused, even stupid, or …just a little quirky, original, eccentric, and eas-
ily distracted’(p. 11). Davis (2005) added that disclosure incites the impulse in ‘righteous citizens
…to play a vigilante role’(p. 211), as they caution against being fooled by fabricators who only
want to take advantage of benefits that would otherwise be inaccessible to them.
4 V. L. B. DOLAN
Ableism and performativity
The increased productivity demands imposed on faculty have created a work environment
steeped in stress (Kouritzin, 2019). Respectable academics are expected to be relentlessly
‘energetic, have high concentration abilities, be alert to adapt to changing conditions, and be
able to withstand physical, mental or interactive stress in good humour’(Wendell, 2001, p. 27).
Furthermore,
Academic ‘products’are valued in dollar terms through the various technologies of institutional funding
where ‘products’include such ‘measurables’as student completions of their degrees, articles and books
published in designated outlets and the winning of external research grants. Neoliberal time thus ties
individuals and organisations to the chaos of the market, requires never-ending flexibility in response to
that market and, in the interests of driving those individuals and institutions in directions favorable to the
market, it regulates, controls, standardises and pressurises (Wendell, 2001, p. 49).
University administrators faced with global competition for student enrollments, as well as
declining government funding and increased demand for student financial aid (Stenerson,
Blanchard, Fassiotto, Hernandez, & Muth, 2010), find they have little choice but to impose high
performance demands on faculty and staff. Ball (2015) described how the traditional meanings
attributed to learning, teaching and conducting research have been transformed in the neo-
liberal era:
The practices and technologies to …include annual reviews, league tables and rankings, impact narratives,
CVs, performance-related pay, the granting of degree-awarding powers to commercial providers, off-shore
campuses, student fees, expanding overseas recruitment, and Public-Private Partnerships of all sorts. (p. 258)
In short, today’s academy creates and nurtures ableism and individualism among scholars.
Any suspicion surrounding a scholar’s ability to keep up with performative job demands may
put their value and competence under scrutiny—and any person who expresses a need for
assistance or accommodations in their attempts to perform required tasks may be stigmatized.
Ableism leads to otherism (Said, 1978), in which faculty members see colleagues with disabilities
as ‘different’(Mik-Meyer, 2016). Within ableist environments, in order for a professor to be con-
sidered normal, completing tasks without assistance is a requirement (Evans et al., 2017). As Ball
and Olmedo (2013) pointed out, referring to the life of scholars under neoliberal governance,
that below-standard performers are considered irresponsible. Hence, particularly for those with
disabilities, being responsible means meeting high, often unforgiving standards in spite of any
health-related issues. Ironically, universities appear to ignore the warning signs that ableism
could ultimately put their institutional health in jeopardy. And as a consequence, a large number
of professors regrettably live with the fear of being perceived as incompetent.
Research method
This study explored the experiences of scholars with invisible disabilities in the face of academic
demands they must perform on a routine basis. Within a total of 16 North American academics,
there were four full professors, seven associate professors (three in tenure-track positions), one
assistant professor and four adjuncts. In line with the research criteria, all participants had to
self-identify as having one or more invisible disabilities and to be faculty members at higher edu-
cation institutions. Once I had obtained permission to proceed from the Institutional Review
Board at my institution, a recruitment letter was posted on the websites of organizations such as
the Association on Higher Education and Disability, the Society of Disability Studies, and the
Canadian Association of University Teachers. Participants were asked to provide a few generic
details about their institution(s) of affiliation, as well as their employment status. All information
related to their identities was secured in a password-protected database.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 5
The interview process
Ninety-minute semi-structured interviews were conducted via Skype
TM
video—except for two
that occurred face to face. A primary concern was to determine the nature of professorial tasks
that are typically stressful for these academics. Of significant importance was understanding how
easily (or not) each participant performed those tasks, and how they managed to do them in
spite of pain or cognitive difficulties caused by any sort of impairment. Equally vital was gaining
an appreciation for which aspects of interviewees’job experiences brought them pleasure or
stress. Hence, the following questions anchored each conversation:
Tell me about your experiences of disability when performing academic activities such as: (a)
teaching; (b) advising; (c) supervision of student research; (d) professional development; (e)
applications for research funding; (f) conducting, writing up and publishing research; (g) par-
ticipation in committees; and (j) administrative tasks.
Describe a good day and a bad day in your work life.
Explain a few coping strategies that you have developed over the years to succeed in your
academic endeavours. How do you try to make your work less stressful? How important is it
to be able to count on the support of family, friends and/or colleagues?
While these ‘scripted’questions provided some guidance, participants were welcome to steer
the interview content as they pleased. Often interviewees took the conversation effortlessly in
directions that helped to illuminate issues not originally anticipated in the study design.
Analysis of data
The narratives of participants were considered within a Postmodern Grounded Theory/Situational
Analysis (PGT/SA) framework, a methodology pioneered by Clarke (2005). In dissecting the con-
tent and common themes that surfaced after each interview, I focused on the discourse that
symbiotically created, fed and resulted from diverse scholarly situations. Critical for the research-
er’s analysis of data, PGT/SA looks at the social, historical, political, cultural and non-human con-
tingencies (in this study, institutional policies and procedures, academic culture and the physical
environment) shaping what each research participant perceives as the nature of their every-
day existence.
The frequency of themes and categories is at core to traditional grounded theory analysis.
Clarke’s postmodern model, however, places less attention on the regularity with which certain
themes come to the surface (although this is by no means ignored); instead, the focus is on how
individual stories underpin the situation under scrutiny. The uniqueness of each actor is still fun-
damental to PGT/SA. Respecting the humanness of each participant was hugely important to
me, as a reflexive researcher, in heightening my awareness of my own values, beliefs and biases
and how they influenced my interpretation of participants’stories.
Departing from Strauss and Corbin’s focus on human action, Clarke (2005) asserts that to fully
study a situation, discourse and contextual circumstances must also be taken into account. The
related experiences serve as ‘a particular representation given in context and understood in that
context’(Thomas, 2012, p. 43). At the same time, by seeking coherence in all of the interviews, I
was better able to understand how the macro-narrative affected the micro-narratives of these
faculty members. The story of each participant was treated as one more brick in the construction
of a collective experience and contributed foundationally to the data analysis and conclusions.
Recurring discourses offered significant clues for understanding the experiences potentially lived
by all members of the academy with disabilities. Most importantly, paying close attention to pre-
dominant disability/ableist discourses proved helpful in better defining the oppressive forces act-
ing against disabled academics. Moreover, any messages that touched upon the experience of
6 V. L. B. DOLAN
being an academic with an invisible disability were deemed relevant, as they might yield signifi-
cant examples of the general social discourse on disability.
To ensure research trustworthiness, both I and my research supervisor individually codified
the transcripts. During many meetings, we compared notes and thoroughly discussed our find-
ings so as to reach a consensus regarding our conclusions. For the sake of triangulation, I had a
few back-and-forth email exchanges with participants so they could confirm details of my inter-
pretation, in addition to being welcome to add any information they deemed relevant.
Results
Using the PGT/SA methodology made it possible to look beyond the individual positions of pro-
fessors with invisible disabilities and see the many realities they appear to have in common,
such as working in environments seemingly characterized by disability avoidance, as Bolt would
describe it (2016). By following Clarke’s(2005) methodology of mapping predominant themes in
order to see ‘the big picture’(see Appendix), I could reach the insights presented in the conclu-
sion of this article. As I worked to understand events that appeared critical in shaping the experi-
ences of these academics—particularly those who do not have tenure—several predominant
themes surfaced, including neoliberalism, ableism, the focus on performativity, disability avoid-
ance, and oppressive situations of power affecting the experience of so-called precarious faculty.
Participants
As depicted in Table 1, three full professors among the participants, in spite of their disabilities,
have attained not only tenure but progressive promotions based on recognition of their success.
Yet all had disabilities they chose to keep hidden, at least at some point in their scholarly
careers. Sam spoke of experiencing ‘mood swings’. Sylvia recounted episodes of detachment or
‘confusion.’Rita shared her thoughts about living with the stress caused by chronic (‘but treat-
able!’) migraine headaches: ‘Colleagues see me functioning but don’t know of the multiple medi-
cations I take, how even small changes in my routine can bring on a headache.’Similarly,
Norma, another full professor (albeit contractual), has achieved a ranking equivalent to tenure at
her institution while living with ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis.
The seven associate professors have progressed from entry level in the academy, yet they too
described various issues that affected their day-to-day academic work, from memory problems
and racing thoughts to hearing difficulties and joint pain. Beth, a tenure-track professor, has
been diagnosed with what is medically labelled multiple sclerosis, although she has assessed
herself as healthy for most of her life; sometimes she needs to work from home, relying on
her husband’s help with typing due to the tingling sensation in her hands. Lorna, who is
‘long-tenured and near retirement,’did not receive her diagnosis of ADHD until her late 40s.
Because she sees ‘different degrees of understanding, empowerment, and prejudice persist[ing]
in the academy,’she has put much effort into creating awareness regarding her situation, in an
attempt to assist other academics with invisible disabilities.
Michele, an associate professor at the time of the interview, has been diagnosed with hearing
difficulties. Sybil and Fiona, who teach at Canadian institutions, are also hearing impaired. Dora,
who has chronic pain, described herself as being ‘disabled by association, as every member of
my family of origin struggles with a laundry list of mental health diagnoses.’Gerald’s difficulties
in living with chronic pain were so acute that he decided to leave the academy shortly before
participating in the study, despite being in a tenure-track position. And lastly DJ, an assistant
professor (who achieved tenure subsequent to his interview), described how he began to inte-
grate his experience in the academy as an individual with ‘mood swings’into a research program
on the topic.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 7
Sandra, one of the four adjuncts, deals constantly with ‘skin lesions that itch and burn.’She
feels strongly that she can only ‘stay in the game’if she receives equal treatment, ‘like any other
non-disabled faculty member.’Therefore, she has not ‘told a soul’about her disability. Oswald,
who teaches remotely, has experienced pain from years of computer work, in addition to having
lived with mild cerebral palsy. He often works lying down due to oppressive back pain. And,
finally, Monica and Rose have received medical diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorder
and fibromyalgia.
Recurring themes
The most prevalent themes originated in interviews with these 16 professors can be summarized
as follows:
Ableism, disclosure and neoliberal realities
Given the neoliberal postsecondary landscape—competitive, precarious, characterized by heavy
workloads—all participants acknowledged that ‘coming out’is dangerous. They were unanimous
Table 1. General professorial information, medical label and personal description of their situation.
ID Professorial ranking Medical label Personal description of situation
Rita Full Migraine headaches Strong headaches
Sam Full Bipolar disorder Mood swings; oscillates between
sadness and low energy and
optimism and high enthusiasm
Sylvia Full Schizophrenia A sense of detachment from reality;
confusion and social withdrawal
Norma Full-time Contractual Ankylosing spondylitis and
rheumatoid arthritis
Chronic inflammation and pain in the
joints; difficulties in concentration
Michele Then: Associate Now: Full Hearing loss Hearing difficulties
Beth Associate Multiple sclerosis Numbness, weakness and tingling of
body extremities; pain; fatigue
Fiona Associate Chronic neurological and audiological
illness; Lyme disease
Memory problems; muscle pain;
dizziness; fatigue; gastrointestinal
disturbances
Lorna Career Associate ADHD Difficulties in concentration; ‘racing
thoughts’; impulsiveness;
distractedness; procrastination
Sybil Associate Hearing loss Hearing difficulties
DJ Then: Assistant Now:
Associate with tenure
Bipolar, anxiety, personality and
sleep disorders; depression, PTSD;
substance use; and chronic pain
Mood swings; oscillates between
sadness and low energy and
optimism and high enthusiasm
Dora Associate Chronic pain; herniated disk;
migraines, anxiety and depression
Back pain; excessive uneasiness and
apprehension; long periods of
sadness and lack of energy
Gerald Left the academy Chronic fatigue syndrome;
fibromyalgia; Lyme disease;
degenerative disc disorder (DDD)
and failed back syndrome
Chronic pain
Sandra Adjunct Sarcoidosis Skin lesions; painful joints; breathing
difficulties
Oswald Adjunct Cerebral palsy and chronic pain Balance, coordination and speech
issues; generalized constant pain
Monica Adjunct Fibromyalgia; chronic pain;
PTSD; ADHD
Constant pain; fatigue; headaches;
lack of energy; distractedness;
psychological distress in response
to disturbing memories; constant
generalized pain
Rose Adjunct PTSD; fibromyalgia and hearing loss Constant pain; fatigue; headaches;
psychological distress in response
to disturbing memories; hearing
difficulties
8 V. L. B. DOLAN
in believing that such a revelation likely carries a high price, including potential exclusion from
the academy. While tenure provides some sense of safety, and although a few participants saw
positive developments when they came out, an overall sense of distrust hangs over the acad-
emy, particularly for those in the most precarious positions. Even though disclosure is sometimes
impossible to avoid, most felt it necessary to maintain non-disclosure, despite the fact that the
effort can be extremely stressful. Table 2 presents participants’description of their workload, in
addition to their number of publications and disclosure status.
Participants indicated that job precarity undoubtedly shapes their decision-making. Only three
have completely disclosed: tenured professors Fiona, Sylvia and Sam. The latter pair are full pro-
fessors at U.S. research universities; both decided to reveal their disabilities, as the job security
that typically comes with tenured status allows them to advocate on behalf of others. This sug-
gests a plausible argument that disclosure and precarity are linked in the neoliberal academy
through performativity. Still, as Sylvia discussed, even the image of a tenured professor may be
compromised by the stigma of an invisible disability, particularly if it is related to mental health.
Jobs may not be lost, but opportunities to pursue academic endeavors such as keynote talks,
conducting joint research or co-authoring publications may be put at risk.
Sylvia and Sam are able to do a significant amount of research and writing compared to other
participants in less secure positions, who are often caught up in teaching and performing admin-
istrative duties. Both scholars work in research-intensive universities where they have obtained
tenure and full professorships based on their well-established publication records. At least from
a neoliberal governance perspective, these professors are considered successful. Nevertheless,
Table 2. Participants’self-description of workload, number of publications and disclosure status.
ID Professorial rank Institutional size
Workload
(research/
teaching/service) Publications Disclosure status
Rita Full Mid (U.S.) 50/30/20 >10 Fearful of stigma
if discloses
Sam Full Large (U.S.) 50/30/20 >10 Out: writes on subject
Sylvia Full Large (U.S.) R: 85/S: 15 >10 Out: writes on subject
Beth Associate Large (U.S.) 30/35/35 >10 Only those she trusts
Michele Now: full
Then: associate
Mid (Canada) 2.6 courses/yr >10 Partially out:
gradually disclosing
Fiona Associate Large (Canada) 40/40/20 >10 Out: writes on subject; but
cautious with colleagues
Lorna Career associate Mid (Canada) 20/60/20 <10 Controls who
become aware
Norma Full-time
contractual
Large (U.S.) T: 90/S: 10 <10 Avoids disclosure
Sybil Associate Small (Canada) 40/40/20 >10 Cautiously reveals
DJ Now: associate
Then: assistant
Mid (U.S.) 40/40/20 >10 Teaches/made video
on disability
Dora Associate Small (U.S.) Increase from 3/3
to 3/4
courses/yr
>10 Does ‘not trust or confide
in anyone’
Gerald Left academia Small (U.S.) 60/30/10 <10 Disclosure can mean ‘the
end of our job’
Sandra Adjunct Small (U.S.) 60/30/10 <10 Has ‘not told a soul’
at work
Oswald Now adjunct; was
tenure track
Large (U.S.) T: 100 <10 Explains to students he is
not ‘damaged goods’
Monica Adjunct Small (U.S.) T: 100 0 Disclosure forced by need
for accommodation
Rose Now: adjunct; Mid (U.S.) T: 80/S: 20 1 Campus is ‘not safe’
Then: assistant ‘Outed’by
dissertation advisor
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 9
Sylvia and Sam recognize that many of their pre-tenured and untenured peers with invisible dis-
abilities choose not to speak up for fear of putting their careers in jeopardy.
Faculty at research-intensive universities with smaller workload allocation for research and
writing have fewer publications and more job precarity. Norma, notwithstanding, has attained
equivalent-to-tenure status at a community college where 90% of her responsibilities are teach-
ing-related, and where her performance as a teacher equates to job security. But for others the
situation is different. For example, Rose has no formal research allocation, and her teaching
responsibilities as an adjunct leave little time for original scholarship. Indeed, many participants
highlighted the degree of competition among research-focused universities for government
funding, as well as student enrolments, and the significant impact on faculty members with
invisible disabilities. As participants explained, administrators remain focused on performativity,
exerting pressure on faculty—and themselves—to become more productive, which they feel will
enhance the reputation and attractiveness of their institutions. Under a regime of performativity,
academics compete against each other in order to remain relevant and valued by their schools
of affiliation. For those with invisible disabilities, therefore, the competition is even more
‘daunting’—as adjunct Sandra describes her efforts to conceal her disability and have the same
chances as her colleagues for career advancement.
Disclosure for the non-tenured. The study results point to competitiveness and inequity as a
recurring theme. Michele says that the academic setting is anchored in relationships of power,
‘and you don’t want to be seen as inferior’as the result of disclosing a disability. Rita adds that
universities have an interest in nurturing fierce competition among faculty ‘because then people
become more productive.’Lorna sees this competitiveness expressed through ‘professional envy
and egos that need to be inflated.’Rose, in her current adjunct position, regrets the fact that
she never felt supported by anyone in her previous research-intensive institution and had no col-
leagues she felt she could trust. And persistent mistrust is also what leads Dora, a tenure-track
professor, to fight hard against leaving herself ‘vulnerable to neoliberal realities’, which she
believes would happen if she disclosed her disability. As she says: ‘Everyone is engaged in this
process of fighting each other for crumbs. This is a direct extension of the hyper-competitive cul-
ture that we live in. There are 650 other people willing to take my place in the market.’
The opinions of online adjunct Oswald align in many ways with Lorna’s, especially when he
comments on the ‘sick’culture that promotes competition among academics:
People are really insecure in some ways, even though they seemingly have the most power [and enjoy]
their powerful positions. We’ve all met other people like that, who seem to get their jollies off by putting
other people down, and it’s kind of sick.
Being able to teach remotely can empower some academics who otherwise would have to
quit their careers due to a disability. But technology can also allow institutions to monitor fac-
ulty’s productivity from a distance. As Foucault (1977) observed, power carries intention: neo-
liberal universities use systems of surveillance to ensure that faculty, staff and students perform
their ‘roles’according to institutional objectives. Moreover, the experience of teaching online has
the potential to cause even more stress for faculty with disabilities. Oswald (similarly to myself)
has taught online classes with up to 40 students. In this environment, the turnaround time for
graded work typically must be within 48 h. Online instructors must be ready to spend a consider-
able amount of time responding to students’messages and are assessed on the quality of their
interactions. To be considered a competent online instructor, one must be present in discussions
nearly every day. There is intense pressure, regardless of instructors’varying abilities, to perform
at a high level within narrowly defined standards of effectiveness. As Oswald sums it up, ableism
online is ‘about productivity and it’s about interactivity. It’s about how you are perceived by the
students and how you connect with them.’
10 V. L. B. DOLAN
Dora, echoing Michele, sums up the connection between academic competitiveness and dis-
ability: ‘We’re in a constant condition of crisis, and I think that makes us hyper-competitive,
right? I am not willing to make myself vulnerable and out myself and wear my disability on my
sleeve.’Lorna, by contrast, is somewhat secure in her tenured position, having produced a mod-
est number of publications despite a workload that is only 20% allocated to research. Still, she
has had to come to terms with the fact that while she has achieved associate status in a
research-intensive university, she is not likely in a position to move to full professorship.
Hiding disabilities that are not easily detectable seems to be a matter of scholarly survival for
most. Study participants put significant effort into concealing any aspects of their academic per-
sonas that might be considered odd or unfitting. Yet even in this seemingly inhospitable envir-
onment, DJ, a professor who resisted advice to keep his disability research under wraps, has
survived the revelation; since his interview for this study, he has been awarded tenure and pro-
moted to associate professor. Presumably this recognition was based in part on the fact that DJ
had a dozen publications: evidence of his productivity makes his disability tolerable, particularly
when he uses it to educate others.
Because Dora has a similar publishing profile to DJ, she will likely be able to achieve her goal
of tenure; hence her caution about not disclosing her disability to avoid being discarded as ‘not
good enough.’Meanwhile, adjunct Rose, who was once in the tenure track at a small U.S. private
university, still believes that tenure has value. And the general perception among most study
participants is that tenure provides the option of coming out in the neoliberal academy, even if
one decides to play it safe and not disclose.
A few participants who are on the tenure track and producing ‘acceptable’numbers of publi-
cations believe tenure will enable them to relax and not worry so much about disclosure. This is
consistent with the declarations of fully tenured participants, who admit to feeling they can
reveal any sort of impairment, including those that are highly stigmatized. As Michele says:
‘You’ve proven yourself. They know you’re competent, so you can be free to talk about your dis-
ability. I now feel more empowered to speak up about my needs.’Other participants, though,
believe that even with tenure, disclosing a disability can be problematic.
Coming out and the precariat. Many participants expressed the view that precarious faculty
members cannot avoid stressful uncertainty over whether they will be able to sustain a decent
living. Lorna feels that the academic workplace has become far more competitive, characterizing
it as ‘exploitative.’The situation becomes drastically worse in the case of disabled faculty who
work from contract to contract. For Oswald, an adjunct professor who now holds no hope of
ever receiving tenure, academic life has lost its appeal—if it ever had any. Here is how he
describes the effects of ableist discourse in the fight for permanent status:
I’ve given up. I had fantasies of getting tenure. I used to be much more nervous about revealing [my
disability, so I] worked harder and I covered it up. I was on a tenure track and once let it slip to a member
of my hiring committee that I was struggling with [the side effects of my disability]. Because the school was
located in a remote area, they had trouble to find decent hires. Her comment in response to my revelation
was, ‘Oh, you know, we always get the damaged goods.’That was like a knife stabbing my heart.
Gerald paints a bitter scenario of a career shaped by the treacherous politics of neoliberal aca-
demia: ‘Some people share the same evil agenda.’In his view, ‘even with policies and structures,
[a good workplace] still depends on a culture that fosters people caring for one another.’Gerald
never managed to experience such a culture while working as a professor.
Interviewees who experienced precarity and are now in more secure positions confirm the
view that adjuncts face an even more unsympathetic environment marked by rivalries and back-
stabbing. Beth says that even when ‘some people don’t have [legitimate] power, they still can
make things very unpleasant for others around them.’And DJ sees faculty meetings as a particu-
larly ‘toxic activity,’perceiving that colleagues see him as a troublemaker due to what he calls
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 11
his ‘personality disorder.’He sums up his negative view of academe: ‘We’re all full of prejudices;
we’re pretending we’re not, and we’re kidding ourselves.’
Adjunct professor Rose describes in detail how postsecondary institutions that treat students
as consumers create an unwelcoming environment for contingent faculty. From her perspective,
if a student expresses discontent over any aspect of her performance, she could be easily
replaced by another candidate. She discusses a variety of situations in which she felt antago-
nized by her university, particularly when she carries two intersecting stigmatizable identity traits
that make her even more vulnerable: she is a member of the LGBTQ community with a disability.
At some point, Rose was obliged to start teaching at a nearby community college. ‘I was in
debt,’she explains, ‘and my adjunct salary would not make things better.’She subsequently
found what seemed to be a better position at a for-profit university: ‘If not for them, I would
have never made it in traditional academia as a disabled person.’Unfortunately, however, as
Rose explained in a subsequent email, her health has taken a turn for the worse. She has made
what she considers ‘silly mistakes,’with the result that her current institution, which initially
seemed willing to accommodate her needs, changed its approach—perhaps because leaders
were unprepared to fully accept faculty with disabilities. They took steps, as Rose put it, to
‘relegate [me] back to part-time adjunct status. This means [losing] my health insurance, as well
as my legal benefits—and I literally just filed for bankruptcy.’As her world crashes around her,
Rose once again feels that academia has let her down: ‘If you’re an adjunct, you have no power,
no job security, and you can expect no compliance with the law. Now …imagine if you’re dis-
abled on top of that.’Tragically, Rose now calls her car ‘home.’
For Monica, life as an adjunct has been slightly different. While many universities have chosen
to employ contingent faculty members to cut costs, this hiring trend has not been evident at
her U.S. institution. Instead, she says, her university is taking a different route to avoid allocating
scarce resources to accommodate faculty with health-related issues:
What they’re proposing as a solution to the adjunct problem is to get rid of all the part-timers and replace
them with full-timers who can work 60 hours a week and then get paid presumably a living wage. But that
basically just screws people like me who are disabled and who just cannot [work all those hours.] They
want to get rid of all the jobs that disabled people can do and replace them with jobs that only able-
bodied people can do.
The implication from Monica’s narrative, similarly to that of Rose and Oswald, is that attempts
to manage around the ‘problem’of faculty members with disabilities can produce side effects of
catastrophic magnitude in the neoliberal academy. To avoid the oft-criticized practice of hiring
more and more adjuncts, Monica’s university decided to get rid of part-time jobs entirely—as if
such faculty, with or without disabilities, could add no value to the institution.
At Lorna’s Canadian university, even tenure-stream professors are ‘grateful to have a job;
there’s a hiring freeze, so no one is going to make trouble.’In other words, no professor wants
to be seen as disruptive or apparently challenged by the expected workload, lest this be inter-
preted as not pulling one’s weight. Likewise Sybil, while recognizing that she has generally been
treated with respect and accommodated for her disabilities, feels that accommodations seem to
be made grudgingly, as if her university is doing her an immense favor: ‘I’m meant to fall down
and worship their feet because they’ve accommodated me or helped me out in some way.’
Sybil’s comment echoes the conclusions of Brown and Leigh (2018) on the stigmatization of
invisible disabilities: An employer, while complying with the legal obligation to provide accom-
modations, may still project the impression that employees are fabricating their alleged reasons
for accommodation, in effect and seeking validation for their inadequacies on the job.
Most study participants believe that tenure at least makes the professorial experience of indi-
viduals with disabilities less stressful financially; tenured faculty who reveal disabilities may
experience a discouraging work environment, but they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Michele
explains that tenure brought her the confidence to make her needs explicit. On the other hand,
12 V. L. B. DOLAN
DJ, as a recently tenured professor, has always known that ‘talking about my disability would
limit my job possibilities. It’s not a sexy topic.’
But non-disclosure may also backfire, or at least may result in nearly unbearable stress. Non-
tenured professors in this study acknowledged believing they may be more susceptible to
receiving mediocre performance reviews, which they link to their disabilities. The decision to
conceal their differentnesses therefore seems natural, given that they do not want to run the
risk of being denied a new contract or even a tenure-track position. Beth shows this instinct for
survival when she recalls her life before tenure: ‘I didn’t want people to know, because I didn’t
want them to write me off.’Clearly, the anxiety these professors experience over disclosure is
most pronounced when they cannot count on the protection that tenure is supposed
to provide.
Discussion
This study highlights the fundamental link between ableist discourse and the challenge of dem-
onstrating that there is no reason for the competence of faculty members with disabilities to be
called into question. Some professors with invisible disabilities, in choosing not to reveal their
differentness, reveal a basic assumption about the institutions that employ them. When a phe-
nomenon collides with expectations of professorial performance, particularly in the current neo-
liberal context, an institution may make individual accommodations, chiefly when they have a
legal obligation to do so. But changing a culture embedded in ableist thinking is much more
challenging. As Sandra puts it, ‘You cannot legislate people’s minds.’
Because ‘ableism has been societally entrenched,’(Bolt, 2017, p. 557), disability implicitly con-
notes a need to slow down—whereas the academic engine is fueled by those who dare not
pause for rest. The idea of disability is therefore avoided at all costs by scholars who want to fit
in and prosper in their careers. Consequently, disability avoidance becomes directly linked to
performativity. However, as Brown and Leigh (2018) have underlined, performance-driven work-
places invariably give rise to issues related to mental health, burnout and stress. And so, while
the idea of disability is shunned in environments grounded in performativity, paradoxically, such
environments may very well amplify or even create disability.
The greater absurdity is that even faculty members who do not currently have disabilities as
defined by the standards of normalcy, may one day be subjugated to the demanding expecta-
tions of the neoliberal academy and find themselves disabled as well. And even if they are lucky
enough to remain unaffected by the demands of performativity, in the end, as Bolt (2016) has
said, ‘if we live long enough, we all become disabled’(p. 1).
This study suggests a clear link between ableism and the neoliberal turn in higher education.
Ball (2012) has argued that neoliberalism is a ‘very real economic and political dynamic to the
reform of Higher Education, a business dynamic which seeks profit from the buying and selling
of education “services”’ (p. 18). Moreover, according to Brown and Leigh (2018), overwork is the
norm. It is therefore important to consider academics with disabilities in light of recent scholar-
ship exploring work contingencies under neoliberal administrations—that is, in environments
where they are increasingly forced to promote their institutions, attract more students and boost
revenues. Amidst ferocious competition for academic jobs, the situation of disabled professors
becomes dramatically more challenging than for their peers. Even when these scholars know
their disabilities do not impede the execution of their academic duties, as is the case among this
study’s participants, there is no assurance that their communities will think the same. Their feel-
ings of apprehension about disclosure are justified.
Within an expanding body of literature on the characteristics of neoliberal postsecondary edu-
cation, notably the explosive growth in institutions’use of adjuncts, the evidence from this study
shows that neoliberal priorities create obstacles for academics with disabilities, particularly
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 13
contractual professors. When an institution decides to offer fewer teaching opportunities, as in
Monica’s case, it can do so without consultation, which is not helpful for those who are invisibly
disabled. In the absence of input from the interested parties, any proposed improvements in the
conditions of non-tenured faculty may simply pay lip service to the problem—at least for those
with disabilities. It seems that the professorial environment promotes the survival of the fittest.
Those with disabilities and/or in precarious positions have few opportunities to shine and are at
a distinct disadvantage. As Ball (2012) summed up, ‘In regimes of performativity, experience is
nothing, productivity is everything’(p. 19).
It is a vicious circle. The tasks required of precarious faculty are heavily weighted toward
teaching. This leaves limited opportunities to do research and publish, particularly for those
whose disabilities require them to tend to their health more intensely than their non-disabled
peers. Prevented from demonstrating their scholarly talents outside the classroom, these profes-
sors have CVs that may not look attractive to recruiters for tenure-track positions. And so, the cir-
cle continues.
As several study participants astutely noted, when the values cultivated in higher education
foster a uniform view of what constitutes normalcy, it can be a genuine challenge to performing
‘normally’especially if the mind and/or body of an individual with an impairment is construed to
be anything but normal (Mat
e, 2012). Moreover, when a culture promotes ableism and performa-
tivity to the exclusion of other discourses, the resulting attitude of anti-disability may ironically
end up harming all members of the collective.
In the current reality, the price of revelation may be too high, despite a professor’s relative
job security. As Brown and Leigh (2018) observed, disclosure may lead to the idea of deviance
from the acclaimed norm, which then results in stigmatization. Nevertheless, in the careers of
senior academics with invisible disabilities, tenure seems to have brought more confidence to
speak up and advocate against the unfounded stigma associated with their disabilities. Not that
tenured professors are necessarily unscathed by disclosure; it can still have devastating conse-
quences for their reputations as competent thinkers, damaging their careers. Those without ten-
ure, on the other hand, may find themselves lacking any realistic possibility of career
advancement. If non-tenured academics reveal disabilities, it could easily prompt their institu-
tions to refrain from renewing their contracts, instead favoring candidates who are perceived to
be ‘more capable of doing the job’(as Sandra puts it). By the same token, if these academics do
not disclose, receiving a lukewarm job evaluation risks their chances of being offered future
work. The oppressive nature of this reality reflects a Catch-22 situation in which professors are
damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Indeed, even considering whether or not to disclose
may cause debilitating stress.
Conclusion
Disability is a phenomenon in which individuals with impairments may be targets of stigmatiza-
tion by a semiotic-material context that fails to give them a fair chance to participate in main-
stream life. This is not to say, for example, that the only reason a person without legs cannot
run a race is because of social–cultural obstacles. Their impairment is real. However, the error lies
in alienating the person because of the impairment, as if the lack of legs makes someone an
inferior being. Equally fallacious is the suggestion that a runner with a disability can be
‘redeemed’by actually completing a marathon—or, in the academic context, the idea that a
scholar with a disability can achieve acceptance by generating a sufficient volume of publica-
tions, or being featured in a documentary film, or winning the Nobel Prize. The results of this
study suggest that, for faculty members who disclose an impairment to have their needs accom-
modated, the social response within the academy may be inimical, regardless of what policy or
14 V. L. B. DOLAN
employment law requires of institutional administrators. This is clearly the reason why many par-
ticipants say they only disclose if it seems absolutely necessary.
The neoliberal governance of postsecondary institutions may impose demands on academics
that are difficult to meet for many reasons. Of course, if scholars with disabilities do not perform to
the same standards as those considered non-disabled, it does not necessarily mean that they would
do so if accommodations were provided; obviously it is possible that performance below expecta-
tions may be the result of incompetence. That said, if academics with disabilities are able to demon-
strate that they can in fact perform their scholarly tasks as effectively as their non-disabled
counterparts, albeit by a less ‘logical’or predictable route, then interpreting their differentness as
something negative is simply unjustified and immoral.
Academics who feel they dare not discuss their impairments with anyone in the workplace for
fear of harming their career must be shown that their stories can be surfaced without damage.
The fact that the professors I interviewed strive to conform, in spite of any physical or mental
discomfort they may feel, in order to be treated equally with their non-disabled peers does not
mean they are impostors. Indeed, these academics provide ample evidence that differentness
need not have hurt their ability to perform on the job and to help their institutions remain pro-
ductive. Rather, only when disability becomes taken for granted, as simply one more dimension
of the differentnesses we all carry—no more of an obstacle than the color of our eyes—will it
become possible to see us disabled academics as more than able to meet and even surpass neo-
liberal standards of quality. Ultimately, it may very well emerge that the academy itself has a dis-
ability—one that makes it impossible to see, hear or feel how the impropriety of imposing
standards of performance could ultimately disable all of its members.
Limitations of this study
Due to the relatively low number of participants, the findings in this study may not reflect
the experiences of all academics with invisible disabilities. The individuals who encountered
my recruitment invitation may naturally be more inclined to visit those websites in their
desire to have a platform to raise their concerns. It is possible that the voices of others with
equally valid narratives were excluded because they do not happen to visit such websites on
a routine basis. Also, the conclusions here are a reflection of my individual perspective, par-
ticularly given that I have an invisible disability myself. As researchers, Luttrell (2000)
observed, ‘consciously or not, we listen and make sense of what we hear according to par-
ticular theoretical, ontological, personal, and cultural frameworks and in the context of
unequal power relations’(p. 499). Inevitably, some details that could have struck other
researchers as important may have been omitted here, solely through the power conferred
on me in my role as researcher and writer. Future researchers may want to explore import-
ant differences related to the experiences of academics in different fields. Also, investigating
the role of faculty associations and unions in the experiences of academics with disabilities
may bring valuable insights.
Note
1. In my PhD dissertation, I used the term diversability when referring to unconventional thinkers and performers.
This seemed an appropriate response to, and rejection of, ablenormative labels attributed to physical and non-
physical impairments. More fundamentally, I felt it would disrupt the arbitrary duality of ability/disability. The
intention behind the term diversability was mainly to inspire a greater sense of agency within contexts defined
and constrained by performativity. In hindsight, I was so eager to help eradicate the notion that disability
means having a flaw or being inferior that I did not want to use the term. Today I realize that in encouraging
the use of the word diversability, I was in fact at risk of perpetuating the stigma surrounding disability. More
than ever, I see why disability scholars such as Andrews et al. (2019) urged us to just ‘say the word.’I now
agree that ‘euphemisms reveal discomfort with disability and reinforce the implications that disability is a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 15
negative and undesirable state’(p. 113). Indeed, the need for just saying the word is critical. When my peers
and friends heard the term diversability, they enthusiastically expressed the view that this would be a better
way to refer to differentnesses, free of any negative aura. Some even said they would be adopting it. Now my
mission is to have them see, just as I did, that if we really care about inclusiveness and eradicating oppression
toward minority groups, we must put energy into making disability part of our discourse, ‘by recognizing and
speaking out against offensive language and efforts to replace disability with euphemisms’(Andrews et al.,
2019, p. 116).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Prof. Vera Dolan is a Brazilian-Canadian scholar who focuses on issues of social justice in higher education.
Building on more than two decades of experience in digital/remote education, her current research shines a spot-
light on the online supervision of graduate students with invisible disabilities.
ORCID
Vera L. B. Dolan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3240-3598
References
Andrews, E. E., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Mona, L. R., Lund, E. M., Pilarski, C. R., & Balter, R. (2019). #SaytheWord: A disability
culture commentary on the erasure of “disability”.Rehabilitation Psychology,64(2), 111–118. doi:10.1037/
rep0000258
Ball, S., & Olmedo, A. (2013). Care of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities. Critical
Studies in Education,54(1), 85–96. doi:10.1080/17508487.2013.740678
Ball, S. J. (2012). Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17–28. doi:10.1080/00071005.2011.650940
Ball, S. J. (2015). Living the neo-liberal university. European Journal of Education,50(3), 258–261. doi:10.1111/ejed.
12132
Bolt, D. (2016). Introduction: Avoidance, the academy, and activism. In D. Bolt & C. Penketh (Eds.), Disability,
Avoidance and the Academy: Challenging Resistance (pp. 1–8). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Bolt, D. (2017). Enabling the classroom and the curriculum: Higher education, literary studies and disability. Journal
of Further and Higher Education,41(4), 556–565. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2015.1135888
Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2018). Ableism in academia: Where are the disabled and ill academics? Disability & Society,
33(6), 985–989. doi:10.1080/09687599.2018.1455627
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Dahlhamer, J., Lucas, J., Zelaya, C., Nahin, R., Mackey, S., DeBar, L., …Helmick, C. (2018). Prevalence of chronic pain
and high-impact chronic pain among adults - United States, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,67(36),
1001–1006. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6736a2
Davis, N. A. (2005). Invisible disability. Ethics,116(1), 153–213. doi:10.1086/453151
Dent, M., & Whitehead, S. (2002). Introduction: Configuring the ‘new’professional. In M. Dent & S. Whitehead (Eds.).
Managing professional identities: Knowledge, performativity and the ’new’professional. New York: Routledge.
Donnelly, C. E. (2016). Re-visioning negative archetypes of disability and deformity in fantasy: Wicked, maleficent,
and game of thrones. Disability Studies Quarterly,36(4), 628–641. doi:10.18061/dsq.v36i4.5313
Dorfman, D. (2017). Re-claiming disability: Identity, procedural justice, and the disability determination process. Law
& Social Inquiry,42(1), 195–231. doi:10.1111/lsi.12176
Evans, N. J., Broido, E. M., Brown, K. R., & Wilke, A. K. (2017). Disability in higher education: A social justice approach.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Frankham, J. (2017). Employability and higher education: The follies of the ‘Productivity challenge’in the teaching
excellence framework. Journal of Education Policy,32(5), 628–641. doi:10.1080/02680939.2016.1268271
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane.
Garland-Thomson, R. (2006). Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. In Lennard Davis (Eds.), The disabil-
ity studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 257–273), New York, NY: Routledge.
16 V. L. B. DOLAN
Giroux, H. (2012). Higher education under siege: Rethinking the politics of critical pedagogy. Counterpoints,422,
327–341.
Invisible Disabilities Association –IDA (2016). Retrieved from http://invisibledisabilities.org/what-is-an-invisible-
disability/
Kouritzin, S. (2019). Extent and consequences of faculty members’workload creep in three Canadian faculties of
education. Canadian Journal of Education,42(4), 1092–1120.
Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.ldao.ca/introduction-to-ldsadhd/
articles/about-lds/learning-disabilities-statistics/
Lolich, L. (2011). …and the market created the student to its image and likening. Neo-liberal governmentality and
its effects on higher education in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies,30(2), 271–284. doi:10.1080/03323315.2011.
569145
Mat
e, G. (2012). Foreword. In L. Rowntree & A. Boden (Eds.), Hidden lives: Coming out on mental illness (pp. 1–2).
British Columbia, CA: Brindle & Glass Publishing Ltd.
Mik-Meyer, N. (2016). Othering, ableism and disability: A discursive analysis of co-workers’construction of col-
leagues with visible impairments. Human Relations,69(6), 1341–1363. doi:10.1177/0018726715618454
Mitchell, D. T. (2016). Disability, diversity and diversion: Normalization and avoidance in higher education. In D. Bolt
& C. Penketh (Eds.), Disability, avoidance and the academy: Challenging resistance (pp. 9–21). New York, NY:
Taylor and Francis.
M€
uller, R., & de Rijcke, S. (2017). Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sci-
ences. Research Evaluation,26(3), 157–168. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvx023
Price, M. (2014). Mad at school: Rhetorics of mental disability and academic life. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Price, M., Salzer, M. S., O’Shea, A., & Kerschbaum, S. L. (2017). Disclosure of mental disability by college and univer-
sity faculty: The negotiation of accommodations, supports, and barriers. Disability Studies Quarterly,37(2). doi:10.
18061/dsq.v37i2.5487
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Stenerson, J., Blanchard, L., Fassiotto, M., Hernandez, M., & Muth, A. (2010). The role of adjuncts in the professoriate.
Peer Review,12(3), 23.
Taylor, A. (2017). Perspectives on the University as a business: The corporate management structure, neoliberalism
and higher education. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS),15(1), 108–135.
Titchkosky, T. (2003). Disability, self and society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wanyenya, P., & Lester-Smith, D. (2015). Neoliberalism and public university agendas: Tensions along the global/
local divide. Journal of Feminist Scholarship,7,93–101.
Wendell, S. (2001). Unhealthy disabled: Treating chronic illnesses as disabilities. Hypatia,16(4), 17–33. doi:10.2979/
HYP.2001.16.4.17
WHO (2015). Mental disorders. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs396/en/
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 17
Appendix
Seed map showing detailed interrelations between discourses in three key
categories: Stigma and Disclosure, The Professoriate and Accommodations.
.
18 V. L. B. DOLAN
