Abstract
Field experiments have demonstrated unequal treatment of wheelchair users on the labour market. This study relies on qualitative interviews with employers previously involved in a field experiment and focuses on perceptions of workplace accessibility. The findings demonstrate three different groups of employers: the physically bounded, the unconcerned and the accommodating employers which have different perceptions of workplace accessibility. The results imply that workplace accessibility is not solely a matter of physical architecture. Instead, a relational approach to workplace accessibility is proposed. What is considered inaccessible at one workplace might not be perceived as inaccessible by employers at other workplaces. Employers’ perceptions of workplace accessibility are shown to be a contributing factor to the unequal treatment of applicants. The results also demonstrate an asymmetrical relation between employers and applicants using a wheelchair that seems to reduce the agency and adaptability of wheelchair users in the recruitment process.
Points of Interest
Applicants who use a wheelchair receive approximately half the number of invitations for job interviews as applicants without impairments, even when the two applicants have similar skills.
One explanation for the lower number of invitations sent to wheelchair users for job interviews relates to the physical access of workplaces.
When employers receive applications for an open position and an applicant discloses that they are a wheelchair user, employers must decide whether a wheelchair user can access the building.
This research divides employers into three groups, each of which have different understandings of what a wheelchair user can access. This understanding impacts who the employer invites for a job interview.
I suggest that future research includes more information about what employers think a wheelchair user can access. This will help to understand the barriers to employment that people with physical impairments might experience.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).