Making geoscience fieldwork inclusive and accessible for students with disabilities
Open accessAbstract
Fieldwork is a fundamental characteristic of geoscience. However, the requirement to participate in fieldwork can present significant barriers to students with disabilities engaging with geoscience as an academic discipline and subsequently progressing on to a career as a geoscience professional. A qualitative investigation into the lived experiences of 15 students with disabilities participating in a one-day field workshop during the 2014 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting provides critical insights into the aspects of fieldwork design and delivery that contribute to an accessible and inclusive field experience. Qualitative analysis of pre- and post-fieldwork focus groups and direct observations of participants reveal that multisensory engagement, consideration for pace and timing, flexibility of access and delivery, and a focus on shared tasks are essential to effective pedagogic design. Further, fieldwork can support the social processes necessary for students with disabilities to become fully integrated into learning communities, while also promoting self-advocacy by providing an opportunity to develop and practice self-advocacy skills. Our findings show that students with sensory, cognitive, and physical disabilities can achieve full participation in field activities but also highlight the need for a change in perceptions among geoscience faculty and professionals, if students with disabilities are to be motivated to progress through the geoscience academic pipeline and achieve professional employment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Digital accessibility barriers intersect with physical infrastructure challenges.
“Moreover, these digital accessibility barriers intersect with physical infrastructure challenges.”
From "I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
Transportation limitations and inaccessible fieldwork sites create compounding exclusions, particularly affecting researchers with multiple marginalized identities.
“Transportation limitations and inaccessible fieldwork sites create compounding exclusions [16, 67], particularly affecting researchers with multiple marginalized identities [11, 30].”
From "I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
Cites
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Khan, O., & Seo, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791242 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Transportation limitations and inaccessible fieldwork sites create compounding exclusions [16, 67], particularly affecting researchers with multiple marginalized identities [11, 30].”
- Authors
- Stokes, A., Feig, A. D., Atchison, C. L., & Gilley, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Plymouth (GB)
- Central Michigan University (US)
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Venue
- Geosphere
- Publisher
- Geological Society of America
- Published
- 2019-11-08
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1809-1825
- ISSN
- 1553-040X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2988792133
- Cited by
- 113
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 9
- FWCI
- 19.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Geosphere (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1464189)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Keywords
- students with disabilities, accessibility, inclusion, inclusive education, multisensory engagement, self-advocacy, sensory disabilities, cognitive disability, physical disability, social integration
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