Content uploaded by Rebecca Anderson-Kittow
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rebecca Anderson-Kittow on Apr 26, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Received: 29 October 2021
|
Revised: 1 April 2022
|
Accepted: 2 April 2022
DOI: 10.1111/bld.12477
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
“My name on the door by the Professor's name”:
The process of recruiting a researcher with a learning
disability at a UK university
Rebecca J. Anderson |Richard Keagan‐Bull |Jo Giles |Irene Tuffrey‐Wijne
Faculty of Health Social Care & Education,
Kingston & St George's University of London,
London, UK
Correspondence
Rebecca J. Anderson, Faculty of Health Social
Care & Education, Kingston & St George's
University of London, Cranmer Terr,
London SW19 0RE, UK.
Email: r.anderson@sgul.kingston.ac.uk
Funding information
National Institute for Health Research
Abstract
Background: The advantages of including people with learning disabilities in
research teams have been well described, but it is rare for researchers with learning
disabilities to be employed at a university. This paper explores the extent to which
university recruitment procedures are accessible to job applicants with learning
disabilities.
Methods: We present reflections on the process of recruiting a Research Assistant
with a learning disability onto a university research team. The recruitment process is
described from the perspectives of the employee, line manager and Human
Resources representative.
Findings: The recruiting manager and Human Resources representative had to make
adjustments to a wide range of standard processes, including centralised online
recruitment systems that were difficult to navigate, inaccessible job descriptions and
difficult application forms. Finding workarounds to ensure reasonable adjustments
were made was time‐consuming. The employee needed significant support from
within his own networks to cope with the application process and had concerns
about the potential impact of fixed‐term job contracts on future benefits. Despite
our efforts, procedures remained difficult for the applicants to navigate.
Conclusions: Employing researchers with learning disabilities is important. Funda-
mental changes to job application systems are required, including easy‐to‐
understand information, alternative formats of application forms, and support
available where needed. Flexibility from the Human Resources departments is key.
They will need support from teams with experience working with people with
learning disabilities.
KEYWORDS
learning (intellectual) disabilities, research, staff training
Br J Learn Disabil. 2022;1–9. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bld
|
1
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Learning Disabilities published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Accessible summary
•It is important that people with learning disabilities are involved in research, but
not many people with learning disabilities have a job at a university as part of the
research team.
•We can learn from examples where people with learning disabilities applied for a
university job. One example is Richard Keagan‐Bull, who got a job as a Research
Assistant at Kingston and St George's University of London.
•What was it like to advertise for the job, apply for the job, and get the job? In this
article, three people talk about this: Richard (who got the job), Irene (his manager)
and Maria (who sorts out the paperwork and computer systems at the university).
•They found that the university's systems for finding and employing new staff were
too complicated for people with learning disabilities. They had to make many
changes to it, such as writing an easy‐read job advert and asking easier questions
on the application form.
•This all took a lot of time. Irene and Maria made things easier but didn't always get
it right. Richard still found it all quite complicated. They wrote this article because
they want other universities to learn from their mistakes. They hope that more
universities will employ researchers with learning disabilities.
•People might lose their benefits when they start a job. Research jobs at
universities are usually only for a short time (1 or 2 years). It can be hard and
stressful to get back onto benefits. This may put people off doing these jobs.
•You can see an easy‐read version of this paper in Supporting Information
Appendix 4.
1|BACKGROUND
The value of involving experts by experience as equal partners in
research is increasingly being recognised by both funders and
researchers (Staniszewska et al., 2018). This approach goes beyond
consulting with these experts, to including them as part of the
research team. Research involving participants with learning dis-
abilities is an area in which this approach can be particularly valuable.
Studies involving people with learning disabilities as “co‐researchers”
have reported numerous benefits, both for the study as a whole and
for the co‐researcher. For the study, these benefits include ensuring
the outputs of research studies reflect the perspectives of people
with learning disabilities, insights into participants' experiences from
a personal perspective that would not be available to the rest of the
research team, and better rapport with participants resulting in richer
data (Butler et al., 2012; St. John et al., 2018). For the co‐researchers
themselves, benefits such as increased confidence, an opportunity to
help others, and the acquisition of knowledge and skills have been
demonstrated (Butler et al., 2012; St. John et al., 2018; Tilly, 2020).
Whilst the advantages of including people with learning disabilities
within research teams are therefore clear, co‐researchers are
rarely employed by universities for these roles, and are often
financially compensated in ways similar to patient and public
involvement (PPI) representatives. Without formal employment,
much like PPI representatives, co‐researchers with learning disabilities
are not working on an equal footing with their colleagues without
learning disabilities. The term “co‐researcher”is rarely applied equally
to the person with learning disabilities and the people they
are co‐researching with (e.g., Research Assistants and Research
Associates). Further, without a contract of employment, researchers
do not have access to pensions, sick pay, annual leave or other benefits
of employment.
Paid employment has been shown to have positive impacts on
people with learning disabilities (in much the same ways as for people
without learning disabilities), including associations with improved
physical and mental health, well‐being and autonomy (Jahoda et al.,
2008; Robertson et al., 2019). These benefits are not automatic, and
too often people with learning disabilities are exploited in jobs that
are poorly paid or in hostile working environments, which do not
provide the hoped‐for benefits of work (Dearing, 2020; Hall, 2004;
Johnson & Walmsley, 2010). Most people with learning disabilities in
paid employment also work under 16 h per week, most likely due to
this being the maximum hours allowed before benefits are impacted
(Hatton, 2018). Many people with learning disabilities do not want or
are not able to have a job (Giri et al., 2021) and pressure to get a job
and the threat of benefits sanctions can lead to anxiety and distress
2
|
ANDERSON ET AL.
(Dearing, 2020; Watts et al., 2014). However, paid employment can
be beneficial for many people with learning disabilities, and these
individuals have a right to appropriate, well‐supported employment
(Assembly UN General, 2006; Department of Health, 2009). Despite
this, just 5.4% of people in England with learning disabilities were in
paid employment according to 2019/20 adult social care figures
(NHS, 2020).
The growing inclusion of people with learning disabilities within
research teams suggests an enthusiasm within the field for inclusive
research. However, the relative rarity of formally employing people in
these roles suggests that there are barriers to this. People with
learning disabilities face numerous barriers to employment generally,
such as the patchy provision of support, costs associated with
transportation to work, low confidence, and negative social attitudes
(Bates et al., 2017; Giri et al., 2021). Austerity in the past decade has
led to an increase in short‐term jobs, putting people with disabilities
at particular risk of losing benefits and not having them reinstated at
the end of a short‐term contract (Bates et al., 2017). Studies and
interventions related to employment for people with learning
disabilities often focus on the need to make people with learning
disabilities more employable through education and training, and
ensuring that workplaces provide appropriate support for the people
they employ (Readhead & Owen, 2020). These are clearly important
issues, but they are not the only barriers to employment. Recruitment
procedures can also be problematic. For instance, an ethnographic
case study showed that moving to a centralised online recruitment
system reduced accessibility and opportunities for people with
learning disabilities (Moore et al., 2018). A lack of employer
knowledge can lead to inflexible recruitment processes and working
environments (Khayatzadeh‐Mahani et al., 2020). Academia is a
context in which some of these barriers to employment are
heightened, due to the proliferation of fixed‐term contracts and
complex, centralised recruitment systems.
This paper presents our own experience of the process of
recruiting a Research Assistant with a learning disability at a
university, to understand some of the barriers and begin to
address them.
2|METHOD
This paper presents reflections on the process of recruiting a
Research Assistant with a learning disability onto a university
research team. We present the recruitment process from the
perspectives of the employee, line manager and Human Resources
(HR) representative.
2.1 |The process of writing this paper
The results section is split into reflections from the line manager
seeking to employ a Research Assistant (Irene), the HR representative
(Maria—pseudonym), and the successful candidate for the Research
Assistant role (Richard). The line manager reflections were written by
Irene. The HR representative reflections were collated by Becky
(Research Associate who manages the project on which Richard is
employed), based on verbatim quotes from recorded conversations
and emails with Maria who then made edits. The Research Assistant
reflections were authored by Richard (Becky transcribed these
verbatim from recorded conversations with Richard). Richard
reviewed and edited these reflections with support from Jo, his
fellow Research Assistant who has a specific remit to provide Richard
with practical and emotional support for his research role. All
accounts in the results section are written in the first person.
Becky drafted the manuscript and revisions were made by all
authors. Becky talked with Richard about what should be included in
each section and Richard gave suggestions of points that he felt were
important to be included.
3|FINDINGS
The new Research Assistant position was funded by the National
Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as part of the Growing Older
Planning Ahead Study (NIHR 129491), for 6 h per week over a period
of 2 years (2021−2023). The role required involvement at all stages
of the research, in particular, the planning and conducting of
interviews and focus groups with people with learning disabilities,
but also data analysis, and co‐designing interventions with families.
The post was advertised in November 2020; the successful applicant
(Richard) started work in January 2021. Table 1summarises the
barriers identified from the reflections below and possible steps to
address these barriers.
3.1 |The application process
3.1.1 |Irene: Line Manager
The first hurdle was to negotiate the university's centralised online
job application process, which can be difficult to navigate. Further-
more, the standard format for job descriptions had a lot of text and
complicated language that would prevent anyone without appropri-
ate support from being able to understand and apply for the role.
Following several months of discussions, and exploring various
alternatives, the HR department agreed that we could write an
easier‐to‐read job description (see Supporting Information Appendix
1). They also agreed that we could give applicants the option of
returning the application form to me as a paper document (either by
email or post), rather than filling everything in online. I emailed any
applications received in this way to HR, who then extracted the
relevant information and transferred it to the online system. This
meant we had to make sure that all the information required by the
online system was included in this slightly easier form. We also
negotiated to leave some essential questions out of the application
form, as it simply became too much. The data collected in the
ANDERSON ET AL.
|
3
Diversity Monitoring section (e.g., ethnicity, disability status and
gender) are only compulsory for shortlisted candidates, so we agreed
that we could ask this only of the three candidates we interviewed,
not all applicants. Despite this, the advertisement for the job vacancy
on the university website was too inaccessible and unlikely to be
found by suitable candidates. The accessible version of the
application form only appeared as a link at the bottom of the page.
I therefore emailed organisations and people with learning disabilities
within our networks who might be interested, attaching the easy‐
read forms and explaining how to apply.
We received 28 applications. Six applicants with learning
disabilities used the easy‐read application form and sent it directly
to me. The other 22 applicants used the online system, but we were
surprised to find that of these, only three met the requirement of
having a learning disability. Despite what we thought was a clear job
description and person specification, applicants included several
Ph.D. graduates. We later discussed this with colleagues from
another organisation who employ people with learning disabilities
and found they had similar applications. While there will always be
applications from people who have not read the job description in
full, in future, including an explanation of the difference between a
learning disability and a learning difficulty may help to reduce the
number of unsuitable applicants. Three of the nine applicants who
met the criteria were shortlisted for an interview.
We made a considered decision to have “Research Assistant”as
the job title for this post, as well as for the supporter role we would
later advertise (Jo's role). Both had the same pay grade and the
number of hours, and their job title was in line with standard job titles
within the university. No other junior member of our faculty has
“Co‐researcher”or “Support Worker”as a job title, and we felt that
creating “Co‐researcher”or “Support Worker”position would not be
in line with principles of equity. The job roles and remits for these
two “Research Assistant”posts were clearly different (e.g., Jo's job
description specified “working alongside Richard, providing him with
both practical and emotional support, and enabling him to articulate
his thoughts on the emerging data,”whilst Richard's job description
included “You will help us to plan the interviews and focus groups;
you will do some research interviews and focus groups yourself (with
help); you will help us to think about what people have told
us.”Despite these differences, there was equity in the fundamental
purpose of these roles, namely to assist with academic research.
Therefore, giving both the well‐recognised job title of Research
Assistant was an important signifier of the value of both roles in the
team and the wider department.
TABLE 1 Barriers to recruiting people with learning disabilities for research positions
Barriers Possible steps to address barriers (who needs to implement)
Centralised recruitment systems are difficult to navigate —Provide the option to apply via email/post, and support to do so
(Research teams and HR)
Inaccessible job descriptions —Provide alternative formats such as easy‐read and videos (Research teams)
Difficult application forms —Put on online information sessions about the post and how to apply,
including Q&A (Research teams)
—Only ask for vital information, especially at the early stages of application
(Research teams & HR)
—Direct applicants to sources of support for applications (e.g., job coaches, job centre,
local providers) or preferably provide that support from within the university, but
outside of the interview panel (Research teams and HR)
Confusing communication —Ask candidates how they would prefer to be contacted (Research teams and HR)
—If calling candidates, inform them in advance of who will be calling, when, and why.
Give candidates the phone number in advance so they will know who is calling.
Clear introductions at the beginning of the call (Research teams and HR)
Lack of time to find workarounds to ensure reasonable
adjustments are made
—Formalise procedures for making reasonable adjustments. Different candidates/
roles will need different adjustments, but the process for requesting these could be
standardised. Adjustments such as allowing applications by email could be part of a
formal policy (HR with support from experts by experience)
—Sharing easier‐to‐read documents and accessible procedures across teams
(Research teams)
Standard interviews may not be appropriate/allow
candidates to demonstrate their skills
—Tell candidates in advance what they will be asked (Research teams)
—Consider alternative approaches, e.g., workshops (Research teams)
Potential impacts on benefits —Provide support and advice to candidates during the application process and
following the end of a contract (HR)
—Clearer guidance on levels of permissible work without losing benefits. Simpler
processes for re‐applying for benefits following a period of work (Dept of Work &
Pensions)
—Addressing precarity within academia. Employing researchers with learning
disabilities on permanent contracts (University management)
4
|
ANDERSON ET AL.
3.1.2 |Maria: HR Representative
The initial challenge we had was to have an application pack (job
description, person specification and application form) that we could
use. Generally, we want all the applications to go through the
recruitment portal to collect diversity data, avoid human error when
putting applications onto the system and be able to see who is
applying for jobs at the university and who is then being shortlisted.
On our website it does say to email HR for an alternative format of
the application, but we didn't have a Word format of the application
pack before we started the process. We had many emails and
conversations to discuss the fact that it needed to be in an easy‐read
format and that it was concise enough whilst still including all of the
details we needed to include (e.g., data protection and criminal
convictions). That was the initial struggle, but with the support of
Irene, we managed to get the application pack ready on time.
For the applications we received via email, we did not have the
diversity data and it was quite difficult to collect this. Initially, my
manager suggested that I call the candidates to gather the
information. However, this was not straightforward. Sometimes they
wouldn't answer (perhaps because they did not recognise the
number) and when I did speak to people, I struggled with
communication and it didn't work out. I think perhaps I put them
on the spot and should have made an appointment to speak with
them so that they could have had someone present to help them to
answer the questions. In the end, this was managed by the interview
panel developing an easy‐read version of the Diversity Monitoring
questions (see Supporting Information Appendix 3), which they
emailed to the three candidates to be returned to HR.
3.1.3 |Richard: Research Assistant
We had a meeting after the research course I did with Irene. After the
meeting Irene said to me, “Richard I'm going to be advertising a job
and I'm going to tell all my contacts about it.”Irene said that she
hoped I would apply for the job. What made me want to apply for the
job was that I enjoyed the research course I did and I thought it would
be nice to get a proper paid job. I do like talking to people and doing
research is quite interesting.
So, when I saw the job advertised, I applied for it. Irene explained
the job a bit to me and then I had to read more about it in the
application form. It said there would be some travelling to Oxford and
it explained what the job was about. My support worker helped me to
look at the forms and do the paperwork. When you've got limited
support hours, sometimes you don't have enough time to do
everything because you've got other things you might need to do.
A lady who helps me do some of my volunteering very kindly helped
too because there was a lot of paperwork to fill out. She pointed me
to some of the things I had done before that I should put on the form.
It was good that they were able to explain it because it was a bit
difficult to understand. If I didn't have help, it would have been a
nightmare. I'm not quite sure how I would have been able to do it on
my own as well as I did with help. My answers would have been hard
to read because I find writing and spelling hard. The process was a bit
complicated; it wasn't that accessible.
After the interview, this person phoned me up and didn't really
speak to me in an easy way. The problem was that I wasn't expecting
anyone to call me, so I didn't know if the call was a scam or not. They
phoned me out of the blue. I think I hung up in the end because
I didn't know who it was. If you're speaking to a complete stranger,
you don't know who they are and what's behind what they are calling
you about. It turns out it was Maria from the university, wanting to
ask me some questions about myself. I think that it would have been
a bit easier if it was done by Zoom, then you could see the person
you're speaking to.
3.2 |Interviews and the decision
3.2.1 |Irene: Line Manager
I had concerns about the need to assess applicants' suitability for this
post in a relatively short interview. Interviews can be stressful and
intimidating. Having worked with co‐researchers and research
advisors with learning disabilities for many years, I have found that
their strong and weak points are not always immediately obvious and
may not be straightforward to communicate in an interview. We had
considered inviting the shortlisted candidates to a workshop where
they may have a better opportunity to show their strengths. This
would have required further negotiation with HR, as it is not a
standard selection procedure. However, Covid‐19 restrictions meant
that we had to conduct the interview online. This was not ideal, but
as restrictions were likely to last for the foreseeable future, the job
would initially have to be carried out at home (with research
interviews conducted on Zoom). A standard online interview did have
the advantage of allowing us to assess how the candidates would
cope with this. Shortlisted candidates were told they could bring a
supporter to the interview, but none did this.
The interview panel included Pam Bebbington, who has learning
disabilities and was a member of the wider project team. Pam's
support worker also attended.
I sent the shortlisted candidates an easy‐read invitation and
explanation of the interview process. This included a list of questions
they would be asked, and details of a task they would be asked to do,
which consisted of a role‐played interview with Pam. The role‐play,
and Pam's feedback on the candidates' performance and suitability
for the job, were invaluable. Pam described how comfortable she felt
during the role play for each candidate and whether she felt they
gave her the chance to describe her experiences and views in the
mock interview. Pam also had some experience of working on
research projects and so gave insights into the challenges the
successful candidate might face. A key strength in Richard's interview
was his awareness of what might be difficult about the role and what
he might need help with. Following discussions, each panel member
was asked in turn (Pam first, then Becky, then Irene) whether they
ANDERSON ET AL.
|
5
thought each candidate could do the job and who should be offered
the job. The panel agreed that all candidates could do the job and that
Richard would be the first choice.
3.2.2 |Maria: HR Representative
Our usual process is to use the recruitment system to send out
invitations to interviews, but this was not possible as a number of the
applications had not come through the system. It was really useful
that the interview panel took over this process but kept me updated.
I told the team about what elements needed to be included from an
HR perspective and then handed the process over to them.
3.2.3 |Richard: Research Assistant
I was lucky enough to get an interview. They gave me a situation
I had to prepare for where I had to ask Pam some questions. Pam was
a woman on the interview panel who has learning disabilities. I didn't
really have a practice. It just all came out of my head. It was good to
have an idea beforehand about what I might be asked. I thought it
was good that Pam was one of the people doing the interviews
because that's what it's all about—talking to people with learning
disabilities. I didn't really know what to wear, so I dressed up smart.
I didn't have any help. It was just me, the computer, Irene, Becky and
Pam. It was quite a challenge doing it online; it was a new experience.
It's stressful when you don't know the people who are interviewing
you really and there's things you've got to do in the interview
with people watching you and telling you what you're going to do.
It wasn't easy and I was quite nervous, but it was good.
After the interview Irene said to me, “Thank you very much
Richard. We will let you know by the end of the week, or maybe the
end of the day.”I was busy doing something else in the afternoon and
my phone rang. It was Irene saying I'd got the job. I felt quite excited.
It was nice to get a proper job where I would get paid at the end of
the month. If I'd had to wait for a week to hear, it would have been a
bit nerve wracking, I think. It was good to get it out of the way on the
same day.
3.3 |Other reflections on the process
3.3.1 |Irene: Line Manager
It was hugely helpful that the HR department were flexible and
willing to adapt the processes. In particular, being able to contact
Maria easily (both over email and via video calls) was important to
deal with issues quickly as they arose.
Whilst it is a legal requirement to make reasonable adjustments
that enable people with disabilities to not be disadvantaged, I do not
think our university has fully grasped what those reasonable
adjustments are for employees with a learning disability. We still
had to fit in with existing systems. What we did was make standard
procedures slightly easier (e.g., through providing easy‐read informa-
tion and allowing a different way to submit applications), rather than
make more fundamental changes to the entire recruitment process.
This is new territory for universities. Hopefully, as more universities
employ people with learning disabilities as researchers, making more
fundamental adjustments will become the norm.
3.3.2 |Maria: HR Representative
This was the first time we as an HR department had gone through
this process, so it was a case of understanding what was possible
within the systems we have at the moment. Having flexibility from
my manager to move to emails and different forms was extremely
helpful because using the recruitment portal was completely out of
the question in this case. Had we said this was the only way we can
accept applications, I think this would have discouraged people from
applying. We want everyone who applies for a job at the university to
have a positive experience and for those who are unsuccessful to
apply for future roles. After the process was complete, I raised the
issues with my manager and we hope we can use the application pack
from this process as a template to use across the university.
3.3.3 |Richard: Research Assistant
There was a lot to do before the interview, and then there's the
interview, and then lots of papers to fill in after the interview. I don't
know if there's some way that the paperwork could be made a bit
easier. It was all a bit stressful and a bit difficult. One thing I wasn't
sure about—I was under the impression from the interview that it was
going to be Irene that would be working with me, but actually it was
Becky. That was ok but I just wasn't sure. Another thing was that
I was a bit nervous because it said it was only for 2 years so I was a bit
unsure what happens after the 2 years. I think I had some questions
about that. It was a bit stressful making sure that you keep under the
hours you can work and keeping your benefits. Me and my support
worker had to make some phone calls about that to find out about
those things. The issue is that I think it's easy to come off benefits but
it's hard to get back on them so that's what we had to be careful
about. It's good to have the job but if it did muck up my benefits then
after 2 years someone would have to help me fill in lots of paperwork
to get back onto my benefits.
Being employed by a university
It feels great to be an employee at the university. It's quite an
achievement. It makes you feel important to be employed by a
university. It makes you feel useful and wanted. It's quite a big thing
for me. I now have a proper ID card to get into the university. It's
quite exciting. It makes you feel important to have an ID card to get
into the research offices where I work. I can even go into the staff
canteen now. On my first day at the office my name was on the door
6
|
ANDERSON ET AL.
and underneath it said “Research Assistant.”That's quite something.
So many people have said “Well done!”and I felt really proud about
having my name on the door by the Professor's name. I've now got
my own key to get into the office.
It's all new to me, things like having a pension and getting paid
for my holidays. If you told me 5 or 7 years ago, or even when I was
born, that I'd be doing this now and would have pension and having
money go into my account once a month, I would never have
believed it. It does make you feel important. It's good.
4|DISCUSSION
In this paper we have discussed the process of recruiting a Research
Assistant with learning disabilities at a university and reflected on the
barriers and facilitators to this process. A major factor in being able to
successfully recruit to this post was the flexibility of the HR
department to adjust the recruitment processes. Such reasonable
adjustments are of course a legal requirement (Legislation.gov.uk,
2010), but responsive communication from the HR department was
vital nonetheless. Despite these adjustments, Richard still found the
process inaccessible at times and required assistance from his
support worker and friends. Our recruitment process may therefore
have excluded some people who don't have existing support in place.
For those who do have support workers, help with the application
may have taken time away from other important tasks to support that
person. We provided the option to contact Irene for help with the
application (which some candidates took up), but contacting a
professor and potential future boss for help may be an intimidating
prospect for some candidates.
We adapted the documentation into creating easier‐to‐read
versions, but the information required was still relatively complex.
While easy‐read formats are often welcomed by people with learning
disabilities, there can be an over‐reliance on them. Easy‐read was
designed as a tool to be supported by a facilitator, not as a format
that ensures accessibility on its own. It can also over‐simplify or
confuse important complex messages (Sutherland & Isherwood,
2016; Walmsley, 2013). For future recruitment, alternative
approaches to accessibility should be considered, such as videos
explaining the role and how to apply. Support to complete application
forms should be provided by someone outside of the interview
panel and line management structures. This could be achieved by
developing a specific role within the employing organisation to
support job applicants with learning disabilities who need this, or by
linking up with learning disability organisations that provide job
coaching or advocacy services.
Going forward, more accessible systems need to be put in place,
rather than making small adaptations to existing inaccessible systems.
HR departments are likely to have little experience with this and so
will need support from teams with experience working with people
with learning disabilities to create this. People with learning
disabilities should be involved in developing these processes to help
to identify parts of the process that may make it inaccessible. Other
issues relating to equality and diversity must also be considered. For
instance, we chose to only collect diversity data from those who were
shortlisted, but this reduces transparency surrounding who is
applying and being shortlisted for jobs at the university and therefore
could mask other biases. Finding the right balance between collecting
the appropriate information and ensuring processes are accessible is
an ongoing challenge for researchers and employers more generally.
In our paper and previous studies, the benefits of employment
for people with learning disabilities have been demonstrated (Jahoda
et al., 2008; Robertson et al., 2019). However, for some individuals, a
more flexible arrangement may be more appropriate than being
required to work regular hours each week. Employers should be
flexible in their approach to including people with learning disabilities
within research teams, according to the needs and preferences of the
individual. This post is for 6 h (one short day per week), which was
not hugely generous, but it was all we felt able to support within the
available budget. Increasing the hours of a researcher with learning
disabilities needs to be matched by increased hours of the
researchers without learning disabilities, as working together is
time‐consuming and therefore expensive; like most research funding
applicants, we were under pressure to keep staff costs down.
Ensuring Richard's work is achieved in this time requires careful
planning so that preparing for and conducting interviews, co‐design
meetings, and analysis workshops occur on his working days.
There are risks of exploitation (particularly for researchers
without contracted hours), where employees are expected to be
flexible about which days they work and for how many hours, but
without reciprocity from the employer (Koukiadaki & Katsaroumpas,
2017). Expectations should be set at the start of the employment,
with regular check‐ins to make sure arrangements are working for
everyone. Writing this paper has made us reflect on our own
accountability. To date, this has been self‐policing, making sure
Richard is not being asked to work beyond his hours and discussing
within the team how things are working. However, we are now
looking into the possibility of involving an advocate outside of the
research team who will meet with researchers with learning
disabilities to discuss any concerns and ensure they are not being
asked to work longer than contracted hours.
A further issue with academic employment is the precarity of
fixed‐term contracts. This may be particularly troublesome for people
with learning disabilities as any income could impact the benefits
they are entitled to. Since starting the role, Richard has taken up
further hours on other research projects within the university.
However, the current Department of Work and Pensions regulations
mean that working over 16 h or earning over £143 per week would
result in a reduction in benefits. In fact, this cap assumes the person
would be receiving minimum wage; in Richard's case, he cannot work
more than a 10‐h week without losing his benefits. This has led to
him making the informed decision not to take on further opportuni-
ties for fear of being denied benefits he is entitled to when having to
reapply for them at the end of the short‐term contract. The likelihood
of finding another similar job at the end of the contract is also
reduced given the scarcity of academic jobs for people with learning
ANDERSON ET AL.
|
7
disabilities. Employers must be aware of these issues to ensure
employees with learning disabilities are not financially worse off at
the end of research contracts. Precarity needs to be addressed in
academia generally, but this is particularly urgent for researchers with
disabilities. Universities should explore “job carving”to find ways to
give researchers with learning disabilities permanent contracts that
could include research time and contribution to teaching activities. As
we state in Table 1, simpler processes to re‐apply for benefits to
reflect the more general trend towards a “gig economy”would allow
more people, with and without disabilities, to take on paid work.
This paper has demonstrated the process of employing a
Research Assistant with a learning disability at a university. We
provide our easier‐to‐read job description, application form and
diversity monitoring questionnaire (see Appendices 1−3) in the hope
that it will be a useful template for others, but also acknowledging
that our approach was not perfect. Richard's reflections, in particular,
show that there is still a way to go in making the process truly
accessible, so we hope this will start the conversation about where
improvements can be made. The processes described in this paper
are also focused on people with mild to moderate learning disabilities,
but we also need to find ways to include people with more severe
learning disabilities within research teams.
Finally, this paper has focused on the recruitment process, but
research teams and HR departments must also consider how to make
induction processes, such as mandatory training, more accessible. It
can be especially difficult when certain functions such as occupa-
tional health assessments are outsourced, meaning managers and HR
departments have little say in how these assessments are performed
in practice. People with learning disabilities and those who work with
them on research projects both need appropriate research training to
improve the confidence and skills of the whole team. The gold
standard approach for this sort of training is for this to be co‐
designed and co‐delivered by people with learning disabilities
(Mikulak et al., 2021). This is a time‐and resource‐intensive process,
further highlighting the importance of sharing resources and
experiences across research teams. It would also be of interest to
reflect on the ongoing supportive systems, structures and approaches
that need to be in place to enable university employees with learning
disabilities to perform to the best of their ability.
We would like to end this paper with a conclusion from Richard
Keagan‐Bull, Research Assistant:
It is important to make things accessible for people with a
learning disability as it's important for them to be able to do jobs in an
equal and accessible world.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the wider “Growing Older Planning Ahead”
project team. In particular, we would like to thank Pam Bebbington
for her input to the interview panel which is discussed in this paper.
The “Growing Older Planning Ahead”project was funded by the
NIHR (ref. 129491). We would like to thank the Kingston University
HR department for their help during the recruitment process and for
putting together the reflections for this paper.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no data sets were
generated or analysed during the current study.
ORCID
Rebecca J. Anderson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7095-8914
Irene Tuffrey‐Wijne http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7288-9529
REFERENCES
Assembly UN General. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities. December 13.
Bates, K., Goodley, D., & Runswick‐Cole, K. (2017). Precarious lives and
resistant possibilities: The labour of people with learning disabilities
in times of austerity. Disability & Society,32(2), 160–175. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1281105
Butler,G.,Cresswell,A.,Giatras,N.,&Tuffrey‐Wijne, I. (2012). Doing it
together (DM Special Issue). British Journal of Learning Disabilities,40(2),
134–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐3156.2012.00744.x
Dearing, K. (2020). ‘Not worth the minimum wage?’Unpacking the
complexities of intellectual disability and its intersection with
employment structures. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research,
22(1), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.729
Department of Health. (2009). Valuing employment now: Real jobs for
people with learning disabilities. Department of Health.
Giri, A., Aylott, J., Giri, P., Ferguson‐Wormley, S., & Evans, J. (2022). Lived
experience and the social model of disability: Conflicted and inter‐
dependent ambitions for employment of people with a learning
disability and their family carers. British Journal of Learning
Disabilities,50(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12378
Hall, E. (2004). Social geographies of learning disability: Narratives of
exclusion and inclusion. Area,36(3), 298–306. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.0004‐0894.2004.00227.x
Hatton, C. (2018). Paid employment amongst adults with learning
disabilities receiving social care in England: Trends over time and
geographical variation. Tizard Learning Disability Review,23(2),
117–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLDR‐01‐2018‐0003
Jahoda, A., Kemp, J., Riddell, S., & Banks, P. (2008). Feelings about work:
A review of the socio‐emotional impact of supported employment
on people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities,21(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐
3148.2007.00365.x
Johnson, K., & Walmsley, J. (2010). People with intellectual disabilities:
Towards a good life? Policy Press
Khayatzadeh‐Mahani, A., Wittevrongel, K., Nicholas, D. B., &
Zwicker, J. D. (2020). Prioritizing barriers and solutions to improve
employment for persons with developmental disabilities. Disability
and Rehabilitation,42(19), 2696–2706. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09638288.2019.1570356
Koukiadaki, A., & Katsaroumpas, I. (2017). Temporary contracts, precarious
employment, employees' fundamental rights and EU employment law.
European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/
etudes/STUD/2017/596823/IPOL_STU(2017)596823_EN.pdf
Legislation.gov.uk. (2010). Equality Act 2010. https://www.legislation.
gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
Mikulak, M., Ryan, S., Bebbington, P., Bennett, S., Carter, J., Davidson, L.,
Liddell, K., Vaid, A., & Albury, C. (2022). “Ethno…graphy?!? I can't
even say it”:Co‐designing training for ethnographic research for
people with learning disabilities and carers. British Journal of Learning
Disabilities,50(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12424
8
|
ANDERSON ET AL.
Moore, K., McDonald, P., & Bartlett, J. (2018). Emerging trends affecting
future employment opportunities for people with intellectual
disability: The case of a large retail organisation. Journal of
Intellectual & Developmental Disability,43(3), 328–338. https://doi.
org/10.3109/13668250.2017.1379250
NHS. (2020). Measures from the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework,
England 2019−20. NHS Digital. https://digital.nhs.uk/data‐and‐
information/publications/statistical/adult‐social‐care‐outcomes‐
framework‐ascof/measures‐from‐the‐adult‐social‐care‐outcomes‐
framework‐england‐2019‐20
Readhead, A., & Owen, F. (2020). Employment supports and outcomes for
persons with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities: A review
of recent findings. Current Developmental Disorders Reports,7(3),
155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474‐020‐00202‐0
Robertson, J., Beyer, S., Emerson, E., Baines, S., & Hatton, C. (2019). The
association between employment and the health of people with
intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities,32(6), 1335–1348. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jar.12632
St John, B., Mihaila, I., Dorrance, K., DaWalt, L. S., & Ausderau, K. K.
(2018). Reflections from co‐researchers with intellectual disability:
Benefits to inclusion in a research study team. Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities,56(4), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1352/
1934‐9556‐56.5.251
Staniszewska, S., Denegri, S., Matthews, R., & Minogue, V. (2018). Reviewing
progress in public involvement in NIHR research: Developing and
implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open,8(7), e017124.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2017‐017124
Sutherland, R. J., & Isherwood, T. (2016). The evidence for easy‐read for
people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic literature review.
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities,13(4),
297–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12201
Tilly, L. (2020). Exploring ethical issues arising from ten years of inclusive
research with people with a learning disability. Sentio,2,26–33.
Walmsley, J. (2013). Commentary on “enabling access to information by
people with learning disabilities”.Tizard Learning Disability Review,
18,16–19.
Watts, B., Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G., & Watkins, D. (2014). Welfare sanctions
and conditionality in the UK. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. https://www.
jrf.org.uk/report/welfare‐sanctions‐and‐conditionality‐uk
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the
Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Anderson, R., Keagan‐Bull, R., Giles,
J., & Tuffrey‐Wijne, I. (2022). “My name on the door by the
Professor's name”: The process of recruiting a researcher with
a learning disability at a UK university. British Journal of
Learning Disabilities,1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12477
ANDERSON ET AL.
|
9
