MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898157041 · doi:10.24135/hi.v2i2.38

Hospitality training as a means of independence for young adults with learning disabilities

2018· article· en· W2898157041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alison McIntosh, Candice Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueHospitality Insights · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospitalityPsychologyHospitality industryAbsenteeismLoyaltyPublic relationsSocial psychologyMarketingBusinessPolitical scienceTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employment is a core plank of independent living for people with disabilities and a key part of their identity and self-esteem. Nevertheless, it is widely recorded that people with disabilities have lower employment rates than the non-disabled, and continue to experience workplace discrimination. Workers with disabilities are generally found to have greater loyalty to the company, punctuality to the job, dependability, greater levels of cooperation and dedication, and lower turnover rates and absenteeism. Representing an estimated 10–19 percent of the general population worldwide, people with disabilities are seen as an untapped source of workers for hospitality labour [1]. Yet evidence shows that the hospitality industry has, so far, been a follower rather than a leader with respect to training and employment practices for people with disabilities compared to other industries [2]. Viewing disability as a product of the disabling wider social and attitudinal barriers around disability (known as the social model of disability [3]), there is an opportunity for the hospitality industry to contribute toward positive social change.
 Given the need to change negative societal attitudes before there can be an increase in the employment of people with disabilities, there is an important need to examine representations of disability in hospitality training and employment. Representations are important because they set expectations around behavioural norms and can help break down barriers by influencing the perceptions of those who receive them. Applying a constructionist approach [4], this research examined how hospitality work and training is represented in the popular television documentary series The Special Needs Hotel as it relates to training for young adults with learning disabilities1 – a group who are rendered more marginalised in employment than any other group of young people with disabilities. The three-part TV series, which aired on TVNZ in 2017, followed the experiences of young people with learning disabilities as they received hands-on hospitality training at the Foxes Hotel and Academy – a specialist catering college and residential training hotel in Somerset, U.K., that is also a fully operating hotel with paying guests (http://foxesacademy.ac.uk/). Over their three years of study, learners are trained in three vocational departments – house-keeping, food preparation and food service – before being prepared to apply for and seek hospitality employment.
 The research found that the series positively presents hospitality training as a means of enjoyment and of ‘achieving independence’ for the young adults with learning disabilities, with coping strategies and accommodations used to ensure the learners meet the necessary ‘realistic expectations’ and requirements of hospitality work. Through the intensive hands-on training, the learners are found to successfully acquire life skills, gain independence, find hospitality employment, and make plans for the future. However, this positive representation contrasts with the fear and realities of independence and struggles with the pressures of hospitality work for the trainees themselves (struggles that are both emotional and physical due to the nature of their disability). Our research highlighted that not all learners wanted independence, and often struggled with the training; for example, the stress and speed of service delivery, difficulties in communicating with customers, and having to work alone.
 Lessons from this research provide the opportunity to review and vary what is expected of the ‘look and feel’ of hospitality work and service delivery in order to increase employment for people with disabilities. In particular, if left unchallenged, the stereotyping of the ‘professionalism’ expected in hospitality work and training can render people with learning disabilities as being and looking unprofessional as hospitality workers and requiring accommodation to meet the standards of ‘doing hospitality’. There is a need to give greater attention to disability awareness training, including information geared toward working alongside employees with disabilities, and HR practices. There are challenges to employers about their attitudes toward employing people with disabilities and management of the physical and service environment with regards to how they can render it welcoming or unwelcoming for employees with disabilities. Above all, this understanding can open opportunities to review and realign hospitality employment and training with ethical and non-discriminatory principles and guidelines, which are essential if the employment of people with disabilities is to be improved. As this research concluded, the inclusion of people with disabilities can make the hospitality experience more diverse, personal, meaningful, unique and memorable.
 The full research article can be accessed here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278431917307351
 Note
 
 We use the terminology of the documentary series and recognise the varied, unique and highly complex nature of learning disabilities.
 
 Corresponding author
 Alison McIntosh can be contacted at: alison.mcintosh@aut.ac.nz
 References
 (1) Poria, Y.; Reichel, A.; Brandt, Y. Dimensions of Hotel Experience of People with Disabilities: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2011, 23(5), 571–591.
 (2) Groschl, S. Current Human Resources Practices Affecting the Employment of Persons with Disabilities in Selected Toronto Hotels. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 2004, 5(3), 15–30.
 (3) Oliver, M. Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, U.K., 1996.
 (4) Hall, S. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices; Sage: London, U.K., 1997.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHospitality InsightsSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207