We need to talk about disability in the political science profession

Who is working in political science, and is represented in the profession, is increasingly recognised to influence how we study and teach political science – what is prioritised and the value that is assigned to it (Ayoub 2022). In my article ‘Disability Within Political Science: Representation and Position in the UK Profession’, I considered the place of disability in the political science profession, and the impact of underrepresentation. While 28% of the UK population are estimated to have a disability (Kelly et al 2023), only 6% of academics disclose a disability in HESA reporting. PSA and BISA in their joint report on ‘Career trajectories in UK departments of politics and international relations’, in 2021, noted an absence of accounts of disability in our profession. In parallel, the study of disability in politics is still considered a nascent research area, not yet prominent in the political science mainstream (Heffernan 2024).

I argue these two above points are prospectively linked. A lack of diversity will impact any field, but in political science underrepresentation is particularly hazardous. Exclusion of a group risks the prospect of omission or demotion of political issues related to this group in the research zeitgeist. The promotion of individuals who represent marginalised groups may, however, increase scholarly action on issues related to these, to place them more centrally into the political science consciousness. Even if disabled scholars do not have any interest in studying political topics related to disability, by increasing presence, I argue, this could increase consideration and awareness within the wider political science community. By addressing descriptive and substantive representation, more may be motivated to engage with less discomfort studying political phenomena experienced by the disabled person.

In my paper I do highlight issues that may, however, impact the disabled scholars access to political science careers. Factors such as hidden excess labour - the additional and unsupported effort that must be placed into academic work not experienced by non-disabled peers - can greatly affect career prospects, limiting opportunities. Similarly, I highlight our lack of understanding of attitudes towards disability in the profession, and how this may influence career prospects – with general evidence indicating disabled scholars are often relegated unfairly, having their contributions undervalued by colleagues who define career progression (Yerbury and Yerbury 2021).

Drawing on my own experience as a disabled political scientist, I feel I have faced significant challenge to become established in the profession. I have yet to achieve a permanent position, stuck in the cycle of temporary academic employment, often not disclosing the mental health impact this insecurity brings alongside the excess effort to overcome disabling barriers, to not have aspersion placed on my academic capacity, until this became untenable (Alexander 2024). Yet I am still extremely hopeful. Voices are emerging calling for change in how disability is viewed within the profession (Chis 2024) and the contribution the study of disability in politics can bring to advance our understanding in political science (Evans and Reher 2024).

David A. Alexander is a Research Assistant in Political and International Studies at the University of Glasgow. His research interests include disability in politics, legislative systems and pedagogical innovation.