Jen discusses how to pay for inclusive workspaces

One of the significant areas of discussion as part of the DISC project is how to fund workspaces to improve inclusivity and accessibility. We receive regular queries about whether funding for environmental alterations should be paid for by an individual working from their own research funding, the funding of their principal investigator, the school/college/department they conduct research in, their host institution or by the funder themselves. This lack of knowledge can result in what could be considered an organisational impasse – no one knows who to ask for funding, emails fly back and forth, get lost, drop down a to-do list and so nothing happens. Other times, funding for alterations is pulled together in an ad hoc way depending on the local budget holders’ discretion. 

The DISC research, and resultant discussions have highlighted how many spaces in UK universities are not designed with accessibility in mind, with STEM funding stakeholders not necessarily enthusiastic about putting this right and funding vital alterations. Here, we propose three options that are available to disabled staff and their managers. 

1. Access to work is a key source of funding for disabled workers, though it is not well publicised. Publicly funded, and conditional on meeting selection criteria, Access to Work will cover individualised adjustments, although some organisations have to contribute toward costs in individual employee’s applications. Like much government funded support it can be critiqued due to its conditionality, as not all applicants will be eligible, creating arbitrary boundaries between staff who are disabled ‘enough’ to access support, and those who are not. This replicates wider problematic discourses about deservingness that universities should strive not to absorb. There is little evidence that employees exaggerate impairments or health conditions, rather, data suggest that they are more likely to fake wellness due to understandable concerns about disclosing disability to their employer. 
2. Research Councils are publicly funded organisations that are subject to wider equality legislation (Equality Act, 2010). Rather than meet the statutory minimum, there is increasing evidence that the funders are trying to address the current inaccessibility of STEM careers. DISC, alongside another 10 inclusion focused projects, is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). The EPSRC has also committed to making a selection of changes to their funding schemes, a number of which relate exclusively to the process of applying itself. They have revised their guidance and improved document consistency, added ‘fairness’ as a principle of peer review, required EDI strategies for those applying for large grants, made assessment criteria more visible and introduced equality impact assessments for new funding opportunities. What is less clear is how this EDI agenda will translate to the funding itself, other than a commitment to try to incorporate flexible working into grant proposals. There is also little clarity in the publicly available information about whether applicants can apply for funding to pay for workplace adjustments. Similarly, though The Wellcome Trust will cover the costs of additional caring costs (providing the example of childcare) for a grant holders/grant researchers while they attend a conference, there is no mention of adjustments or potential additional costs faced by disabled colleagues.
3. A more ambitious approach is for universities to embed principles of inclusive design which would move accessibility discussions away from the individual scientist towards a principle of accessibility for all. So rather than building and refurbishing university premises based on ableist norms, design of the physical workspace centres the needs of disabled people. The more standard reactive rather than strategic approach to design makes workplace alterations more expensive and results in confusion with regard to who is responsible for costs. Funders such as the Wolfson Foundation, who fund new university buildings, refurbishment work and major equipment, specify that their funding is to enable cutting edge research, but do not discuss accessibility on their website. STEM funders and Public engagement funding options appear to have similar omissions, both in terms of their intended applicants and/or the public they seek to engage with, bar the European Geosciences Union, where an engagement event for visually impaired scientists was a grant winner. Industry funders might be a potential source of funding for accessible labs. Industrial partners often want to be at the forefront of technological advancements, and an accessible lab would be just that. Partnerships between universities and industry are often long lasting, and many private organisations have better resources for disabled employees than universities. The ‘knowledge exchange’ promised in grant applications could well extend to EDI practices and improved inclusivity. 

There is clear work for universities, as employers, to consider environmental accessibility in a meaningful, systematic way which does not place the onus on disabled workers to seek alterations, equipment and access to basic workplace requirements relating to parking and campus logistics. We can evidence progress though. Sentiments of inclusion can be found in University Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategies and policies. Universities also have increasing numbers of staff in senior roles who have EDI responsibilities. Similar changes can be identified in funding bodies. However, the significant challenge still, is how to translate these aspirational commitments into material changes. There is a persistent gap between rhetoric and practice, laboratories remain inaccessible, and disabled scientists are still required to fight for appropriate workplace adjustments to enable them to work to their full potential.