More than just double discrimination: a scoping review of the experiences and impact of ableism and racism in employment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research has shed light on the employment barriers faced by individuals with disabilities, and by racialized people. The challenges faced by people belonging to both marginalized groups are less well-understood. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine existing research on labour market and workplace experiences of racialized people with disabilities, and to identify how ableism and racism intersect to shape employment experiences and outcomes. METHODS: Seven international databases were searched, covering the period from 2000 to April 2022. Four reviewers independently conducted the screening, and data extraction and analysis were performed on 44 articles that met our inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The findings highlighted rates of workplace ableism and racism (including discrimination allegations and perceived discrimination); types and forms of experiences arising from the intersection of ableism and racism (including unique individual stereotyping and systemic and institutional discrimination); and the role of other demographic variables. The intersection of ableism and racism impacted labour market outcomes, well-being in the workplace, and career/professional advancement. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights the need for greater in-depth research focusing explicitly on the intersection of ableism and racism (and of other forms of discrimination), to better understand and address the barriers that racialized people with disabilities face in employment.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe experiences of racialized people with disabilities have been under explored, and clinicians and rehabilitation specialists should consider incorporating intersectionality into their practices to better understand and serve these populations.Ableism and racism do not operate in isolation, and clinicians and other professionals need to be aware that racialized people with disabilities may face unique challenges and barriers as a result.Service providers should aim to address gaps and inequities in services faced by racialized people with disabilities which may prevent them from finding and/or maintaining meaningful employment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".