°®¶¹´«Ã½

The words diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are popping up in the news everywhere. More often than not, however, mention of accessibility is left out of the mix, with notable exceptions including and ASM’s Inclusive Diversity with Equity, Access and Accountability (IDEAA) efforts.  

While many universities, programs and institutes are beginning to take access seriously, the scientific field is still uncertain of what it looks like in practice. At the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), home of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (), there are more than 1,100 deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) students on campus, many of whom take classes side-by-side with their hearing peers. This unique academic scenario has given many RIT faculty and staff the opportunity to explore what works, and what doesn’t, to increase accessibility for DHH students, especially in the sciences. Below are just a few examples of “best” (or more accurately, “better”) practices for working with DHH students in the sciences.  

Developing Cultural Competency 

While not all deaf people consider themselves part of the Deaf community (), all people reserve the right to have access to education using the communication style that works best for them. Gaining by learning about Deaf culture from –such as , and –is a constructive way to better understand how to remove barriers to increased access, how to mentor DHH students and how to communicate ideas effectively.

Deaf culture includes a rich and vibrant community of people with language preferences—usually  (ASL) in the U.S.—norms, values and traditions, centered around the experience of deafness. Other examples of deaf norms include, using visual or tactile methods to get someone’s attention (like stomping or tapping one’s shoulder), using facial expressions and body language to convey tone and meaning and using a direct communication style. Without previous knowledge of this latter example, one might consider a deaf person’s blunt descriptions to be rude or insensitive, underlining the importance of cultural competency. 

Ultimately, different people prefer , and it’s always better to ask for someone’s preferred method rather than assume what will work best for them. In addition, there are many , and that can aid in communication between hearing and deaf scientists—working together to identify the best resources for both parties is the ideal strategy.  

Creating an Accessible Physical Space 

It’s also important to create a physical space that allows DHH students to participate in all aspects of academic science, which includes taking classes and . Examples of how one can enhance accessibility in the physical space include the following: 

• Removing physical barriers in the space, so exits and flashing fire alarms can be seen from all areas.  

• Having ASL interpreters or captioning services in the classroom. 

• Installing microphones and movable white boards in research labs. 

Most scientists would agree that learning can occur both in and out of the laboratory. Conversations in the hallway and other social venues help scientists build relationships and understand the nuances of science and academia. These conversations are an important advantage that should be accessible to all, but are often inaccessible . Keeping this in mind, an inclusive strategy would be to compile a list of helpful takeaways from informal conversations (e.g., those conversations advising trainees on how to get an internship) and include them in writing to all trainees.  

Additionally, when introducing trainees to colleagues, or considering them for special opportunities that could advance their career, make sure to do so equitably, regardless of a student’s disability or preferred communication method.  

Adding Structure and Guidance 

Another way to increase accessibility is by adding structure to all aspects of the learning environment. For example, the principal investigator or instructor should provide students with a detailed syllabus (yes, ), create detailed lab protocols and schedule all meetings in advance to allow time to reserve access services (e.g., ASL interpreters). A syllabus that includes formalized expectations will lower a trainee’s anxiety by making it clear exactly what actions are expected from a successful scientist.  

More often than not, small details in lab protocols are not written down, but instead taught by word-of-mouth (i.e., spoken communication). For example, how to hold a syringe while loading a sample, or how to jiggle an agar plate to get rid of bubbles—these details matter and can often make the difference between a successful or failed experiment. Although time-consuming, including all these details in lab protocols makes them more accessible to everyone. Detailed figures and schematics or, better-yet, captioned videos improve consistency and decrease a lab’s dependency on student-to-student training. 

Removing Barriers for a More Innovative Future 

While DEI principles are an integral part of the changing landscape of the scientific enterprise, it is imperative to ensure that accessibility is not overlooked. It is critical to employ the , which places the focus on removing societal barriers to create access, rather than the medical model of disability, which focuses on an individual’s shortcomings or impairments. By developing cultural competency, creating accessible physical spaces and adding structure and guidance to training, the scientific community can work to remove barriers and provide more opportunities for deaf and hard-of-hearing scientists, which will enrich the scientific community as a whole and promote better, more innovative science in the future. 

---

ASM celebrates the achievements and contributions of scientists with disabilities to the field of microbiology. Scientists with disabilities enrich STEM with diverse insights, uniting individuals from all demographic groups. We believe that the various perspectives, experiences and backgrounds of our diverse membership enhance innovation, broaden the research agenda and further scientific advancement.