Cited by 128Disability Education and EmploymentGender Diversity and InequalityDisability Rights and Representation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

‘Just because you can get a wheelchair in the building doesn't necessarily mean that you can still participate’: barriers to the career advancement of disabled professionals

Abstract

Despite governmental efforts and organizational initiatives, the number of disabled professionals in full‐time employment is small, and the number of those occupying leadership positions remains even smaller. Past research into disability and employment has outlined a range of barriers that disabled people face in seeking and maintaining employment. Yet, not enough is known about the challenges they encounter in top ranking appointments. This article extends Ryan's and Haslam's notion of the glass cliff to help explain the precariousness experienced by a group of disabled employees in leadership positions – focusing on the nature of the positions they hold and the difficulties they encounter as they attempt to advance their careers. Using qualitative interview data the analysis draws attention to problems associated with lack of opportunity, lack of resources and lack of support. It also point to ways of making workplace cultures and organizational practices more supportive of diversity.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09687590802469198

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 32 references

3 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Glaser B.G., 1967, The discovery of grounded theory
  2. Mowry R.L., 1993, The Volta Review, 95, 367
  3. Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, 2005, Improving the life chances of disabled people
  4. Ryan M.K., 2007, The glass cliff: Precariousness beyond the glass ceiling, a CIPD Executive Briefing
  5. 10.2307/258666 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Stuart N., 2002, How employers and service providers are responding to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–128 of 128

Metadata

Authors
Wilson‐Kovacs, D., Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Rabinovich, A.
Affiliations
University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Wilson‐Kovacs, Dana
Venue
Disability & Society
Published
2008-12
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
705-717
ISSN
  • 0267-4645 (ISSN-L)
  • 0968-7599
  • 1360-0508
OpenAlex
W2081121618
Cited by
128
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Disability & Society (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Social Fund
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
Keywords
career development, glass cliff, leadership roles, disability and employment, workplace barriers, organizational culture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review