Being an Asset or a Liability: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Students with Disabilities Entering the Job Market

Abstract

Despite the known benefits of workforce participation, many individuals with disabilities remain excluded. This exploratory study utilises selected analytical tools from constructivist grounded theory to investigate how 46 diverse stakeholders perceive disability during the transition from higher education to employment. Additionally, it examines how these perceptions influence efforts toward inclusion and the advice given regarding disability disclosure. Six workshops were conducted to facilitate dialogue on pathways to work for students with disabilities. The constructivist approach to analysis leads to the development of several concepts that capture stakeholders’ perspectives on disability, their strategies for promoting inclusion, and their recommendations regarding disclosure. Disabilities are conceptualised as an asset, a liability, or as insignificant. The views of disability as an asset or a liability influence advocacy strategies and disclosure recommendations, ranging from celebrating to concealing. These attitudes also shape how individuals who disclose disabilities are perceived. Society often expects people with disabilities to disclose their conditions to promote inclusion, even though performing such can involve risks like stigma and exclusion. At the same time, employers share responsibility for creating inclusive environments through universal design and supportive practices. The findings show that both disclosure and concealment can lead to inclusion or exclusion, emphasising the importance of universally designed institutions.

1. Introduction

The right to work is a human right [1]. The ability of people with disabilities to access employment offers benefits for individuals, employers, and society at large. Work brings financial benefits for the employee, provides freedom, a sense of purpose and belonging, structure in everyday life, personal development, confidence, opportunities to build social relationships, and the feeling of being useful [2,3,4,5,6].

Additionally, work provides the opportunity for individuals to contribute directly to society through their work tasks and indirectly through the payment of taxes. This is important given that many countries are experiencing ageing populations [7,8], and strive to uphold today’s social benefits and prosperity [9]. Furthermore, hiring individuals with disabilities can be an advantage for the companies that employ them. In 2018, Lindsay and colleagues found in their review that the advantages for companies could be enhanced innovation, productivity, and company image [3]. Workers with disabilities were found to be more reliable and loyal, which, in turn, increased the company’s cost-effectiveness. For example, several companies experienced a lower turnover rate and therefore had cost savings [3].

Despite the presence of anti-discrimination legislation in many countries [10], the benefits that come with employment [3], and the willingness and ability of individuals with disabilities to work [4], many are not participating in the workforce [11,12]. The transition from higher education to the labour market can be particularly demanding for students with disabilities. Research shows that this group continues to encounter a range of obstacles, including employer attitudes, insufficient workplace accommodations, and challenges related to if and how disabilities should be disclosed during recruitment processes [13,14].

Although employers express positive attitudes toward hiring individuals with disabilities, their actions often do not align with their words [15]. Completion of higher education significantly enhances job prospects [16,17] and the likelihood of securing a stable job [11]. Nevertheless, graduates with disabilities are only about half as likely to be employed as those without disabilities [18]. Students with disabilities face a higher risk of unemployment and often experience longer pathways into employment compared to their peers without disabilities, a situation compounded by gaps in career guidance and institutional support [19].

While higher education can enhance job prospects [16,20], it does not guarantee positive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities [5,19,21,22]. Misconceptions and stereotypes surrounding disability can significantly impact employment outcomes for job seekers [23]. Some studies even suggest that relevant education or work experience may have little to no impact on how employable a person with a disability is perceived to be [24].

Berre [24] draws on the concept of “Master Status” to explain how the label of “disabled” often overshadows other qualifications. Master statuses are characteristics that typically dominate other traits in most cases and situations [25]. These traits often come with several associated auxiliary characteristics expected to be present in individuals who possess them. When people encounter employees or job seekers with a master status-determining trait, they must decide whether to interact with them as a professional practitioner or as a person with master status [25].

The concept of “master status” can also be understood through the lens of tokenism. Tokenism, as Kanter [26] describes, occurs when the proportion of members in a group is highly skewed. The numerically rare category becomes “tokens.” Tokens are seen as symbolic representations of their category rather than as individuals and can be subjected to stereotypes [27,28].

Disclosing a disability can be crucial for gaining invaluable support and understanding in the workplace [6]. However, many employers may not realise that individuals with disabilities are applying for these positions, as the effects of disabilities may only be visible to the person experiencing them [29]. Many workers are sceptical about disclosing their disabilities, fearing loss of career opportunities, being viewed as incompetent, or facing ridicule or other forms of discrimination and stigmatisation [6].

The discrepancy between society’s gains in including individuals with disabilities in the workforce, the limited employment opportunities available, and the obstacles reported in the transition and recruitment phases highlights the complexity of transitioning from higher education to professional life. This also suggests that disability can be understood from various perspectives. There is limited practical knowledge about how stakeholders such as employers, educators, and students with disabilities (SWD) perceive and navigate the transition to employment, particularly regarding recruitment processes, hiring decisions, and disability disclosure. While existing research identifies barriers to disclosure in both education and employment, there is still a lack of insight into what university professionals, employers, and students themselves recommend regarding disclosure during the transition from higher education to job seeking—a gap that this multi-perspective study directly addresses. Based upon this knowledge gap this article explores different viewpoints on transitioning from education to the job market for individuals with disabilities. The study is grounded in a constructivist epistemology, viewing knowledge as situated and co-constructed between participants and researchers. The analysis is interpretivist and reflexive, aiming for a theoretical understanding of processes and meaning-making. A qualitative, exploratory approach is employed, using selected tools from constructivist grounded theory to examine the perspectives of various stakeholders, including educators, employers, and individuals with disabilities [30]. To provide valuable insights into best practices for promoting inclusion in employment, the paper also explores efforts toward inclusion and stakeholders’ recommendations on how job seekers can choose to disclose their disabilities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Workshops

This article forms part of the Collaboration Forum project, launched to gain a thorough understanding of how students with disabilities progress through higher education and transition into the workforce. The research method was workshops because of their ability to promote collaborative learning, generate research data, and encourage constructive knowledge creation [31]. Using this approach, the study’s findings can positively impact both local and broader levels [31,32].

Six workshops were conducted to explore pathways to the world of work for students with disabilities in higher education. The workshops aimed to promote collaboration and shared learning among participants. Various stakeholders were invited to share their views, experiences, and knowledge in workshop discussions, resulting in a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Previous articles from the project based on the Collaboration Forum have addressed the processes involved in requesting or providing accommodation in higher education [33,34].

2.2. Participants

Workshop participants were carefully selected for their roles and experience related to the workshop topics. To include a diverse range of perspectives and explore relevant questions, workshop participants were encouraged to suggest additional discussion topics and recommend participants for future workshops. As a result, the study covered several topics from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including students with disabilities, faculty members, managers, work–life inclusion facilitators, and providers of social services and labour support. Suggested participants were recruited via direct emails containing information about the study and an invitation to participate.

A total of 46 unique stakeholders participated in the workshop discussions that informed the research. Among these stakeholders, several students with disabilities took part. To ensure a diverse representation of these students, three specific discussion groups (Discussion Group 1–3) were organised prior to each workshop. These groups included 18 students—11 undergraduates and 7 postgraduates—representing a wide range of disabilities and study programmes. They were divided into three groups to discuss the same topics that would be covered in the upcoming workshop.

At the end of each Discussion group meeting, student representatives were chosen to share their group’s perspectives in The Collaboration Forum workshops and report back to their peers. Participants for Discussion Groups were recruited through social media, university advertisements, and by approaching students who had previously expressed interest in similar studies.

The topics and workshop participants are listed in

Table 1. Workshop Themes and Participating Stakeholders.

Date and Theme	Stakeholders with Disabilities	“Professional” Stakeholders’ Role or Affirmation
December 2020 Establishing rapport (not included in the analysis)	N = 2 2 Students with disabilities representing 12 students in Discussion Group 1–2.	N = 8 1 disability office representative, 1 lecturer, 2 support providers of social services and labour, and 4 providers of services for lecturer support for universal design and accommodations.
February 2021 Dissemination of information	N = 3 3 Students with disabilities representing 17 students in Discussion Group 1–3	N = 11 1 disability office representative, 3 lecturers, 2 university employees responsible for disseminating information (in the university), 2 support providers of social services and labour, and 3 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations.
Mars 2021 Learning situations	N = 3 3 Students with disabilities representing 17 students in Discussion Group 1–3	N = 8 1 educational development unit representative, 3 lecturers, 2 support providers of social services and labour, and 2 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations.
April 2021 Transition to working life	N = 7 4 Students with disabilities representing 17 students in Discussion Group 1–3, 1 disability organisation representative, and 2 employees with impairment.	N = 14 1 career advisor, 1 university disability office representative, 1 employer/manager, 2 facilitators for work–life inclusion, 2 lecturers, 1 practice supervisor, 1 provider of accommodations and support equipment, 2 support providers of social services and labour, and 3 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations.
May 2021 Assessment and qualifying	N = 6 4 Students with disabilities representing 17 students in Discussion Group 1–3, 1 disability organisation representative, and 1 employee with impairment.	N = 14 1 career advisor, 1 disability office representative, 1 employer/manager, 2 examination office representatives, 2 lecturers, 2 practice supervisors, 1 suitability committee, 1 provider of accommodations and support equipment, 1 support provider of social services and labour, and 2 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations.
June 2021 Attitudes and discrimination	N = 10 8 Students with disabilities representing 17 students in Discussion Group 1–3, 1 disability organisation representative, and 1 employee with impairment.	N = 16 1 career advisor, 1 disability office representative, 2 facilitators for work–life inclusion, 2 lecturers, 2 management, 1 practice supervisor, 2 student politics representatives, 1 provider of accommodations and support equipment, 1 support provider of social services and labour, and 3 providers of lecturer support for universal design and accommodations.

Note: The table shows the time and theme for each workshop, along with the affirmation or role of the participating stakeholders.

.

2.3. Implementation

The workshops took place in a large university in Norway from December 2020 to June 2021 and were held digitally on Zoom [35] due to COVID-19. A project group of six associate professors, two doctoral research fellows, one master’s student, and two students planned and ran the workshops. The Collaboration Forum workshops were designed to encourage collaboration and discussion. Each lasted 3.5 h and had three parts: introductions and short lectures, breakout room discussions, and a plenary session where key points were shared and discussed. Furthermore, recommendations for future workshops were made, including suggestions for participants and topics. Most of the time was dedicated to discussions in breakout rooms. Participants were divided into groups with each room consisting of 3 to 5 professionals from various fields, professions, and organisations, and at least one student representative from a Discussion Group. The project group facilitated these discussions by providing open-ended questions and incorporating relevant points raised by the participants.

All sessions were audio-recorded, totaling 32 h, and the recordings were transcribed and analysed.

2.4. Analysis

The workshops had an inductive design, with participants shaping the content by suggesting topics and additional participants. This inductive approach was maintained in the analysis, developing the results from the transcribed recordings rather than using an existing theoretical framework [30]. Transitioning from academic settings to working life was a recurring theme across all workshops, with a specific focus during the fourth and sixth workshops, which centred on transitioning from higher education to working life, attitudes, and discrimination.

For the analysis, selected techniques from constructivist grounded theory were used to highlight actions and processes in the material [30]. The first author initially coded all transcribed material and thereafter discussed and refined the initial codes with the article’s co-authors. Gerunds were used to emphasise processes in the initial codes. Subsequently, the first author developed focused codes by constantly comparing and processing the initial codes, text, and focused codes. The NVivo software (version released March 2020) was used for initial coding to support transitions between codes and text for consistent comparison [36]. This process began with codes from the summary section of all workshops, followed by the introduction section and each breakout room. The authors held multiple discussions to study and refine these codes, ultimately formulating concepts that captured the processes identified in the data. Examples of concepts developed include viewing disability as an asset and the strategy of concealing one’s disability. The authors sorted these codes and concepts and identified connections between them until consensus was reached on the main categories, their subcategories, and the relationships between the categories. To improve the validity of their findings, they solicited feedback from the project group throughout this process. Additionally, the authors wrote critical analytic memos to enhance reflexivity and to connect coding with conceptual development and the drafting of their work [37].

The methods and their limitations are further discussed in Section 4.4 Limitations and Research Recommendations.

2.5. Ethics

The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference number 324277). Before the workshops, all participants received a comprehensive explanation of the study, including its purpose and implementation methods. Participants provided written consent before taking part.

To provide a comprehensive perspective, a diverse group of stakeholders was invited rather than restricting participation to specific groups. This approach strengthens the methodology but poses ethical challenges when presenting the results. To maintain anonymity and avoid potential recognition of participants, detailed descriptions of their affiliations are not provided in the results section. Those representing individuals with disabilities (students, employees, or organisation members) are referred to as “individuals with disabilities” or “students,” while others are referred to as “professionals.” This categorisation is based solely on their role as representatives in the workshops, and the researchers acknowledge that some participants with disabilities have professional backgrounds, and that some of those described as professionals may have various disabilities.

3. Results

Through analysis, three categories were constructed that highlight the most prominent trends in the data regarding the transition to work. These categories are: “Perspectives on Disability,” which presents concepts capturing the various viewpoints on disability shared during the workshops; “Promoting Inclusion,” which examines societal approaches to enhance the participation of people with disabilities in the workforce; and “Options for Disclosure,” which considers whether and how individuals should disclose their disabilities. Each category includes three to six subcategories, presented vertically in

Table 2. Categories and Subcategories.

Perspectives on Disability	Promoting Inclusion	Options for Disclosure
- Seeing disability as an asset	- Fostering positive attitudes	- Celebrating the disability - Challenging the celebration approach
- Seeing disability as a liability	- Providing enlightenment and support	- Informing the employer - Challenging the informing approach - Concealing the disability - Challenging the concealment approach
- Seeing disability as insignificant

Note: The table displays three perspectives on disabilities, two strategies for promoting disability inclusion, and six options or expectations regarding job seekers with disabilities and disclosure. Related subcategories align with the rows of the table.

.

The analysis revealed that these categories are closely interconnected. Related subcategories across different categories form meaningful relationships, which are displayed horizontally in Table 2. This alignment illustrates how stakeholders’ perceptions of disability influence inclusion strategies and recommendations for disclosing or concealing disabilities in the job market. The following chapter will emphasise these connections by exploring the perspectives on disability alongside the corresponding ideas on promotion and disclosure.

3.1. Seeing Disability as an Asset

Some stakeholders, including employers, believed employers had a positive attitude toward hiring individuals with disabilities. Applicants who openly shared their disabilities were seen as unique, with firsthand experience viewed as a strength, especially in health professions. Both students and professionals believed that people with disabilities possessed valuable traits; for example, those with dyslexia were thought to have better memories, while those with ADHD were considered more creative. Living with a disability provided experiences like adapting and problem-solving, which gave them an advantage at work. Stakeholders felt this created ‘dual competence’—empathy and skills beneficial for many jobs. They saw this as an “extra plus on the CV,’ noting that individuals with disabilities often had to fight for jobs, making them loyal and dedicated. Employers also viewed hiring individuals with disabilities as morally responsible and beneficial for diversity. Hiring people with disabilities demonstrated fairness, which could enhance a company’s reputation. Many organisations were required to include a certain percentage of such workers, increasing their chances of employment.

3.2. Fostering Positive Attitudes

Many professional stakeholders stated that they promoted a positive view of individuals with disabilities. Both student and professional stakeholders expressed the need for more success stories of individuals with disabilities in the workforce, as positive experiences of employing individuals with disabilities could have more impact on changing attitudes than information campaigns. By displaying inclusive practice, the company could promote positive attitudes towards both individuals with disabilities and the company:

“One of the shining examples of successful inclusion so far is a person named [name removed] who works in the administration department. We want to highlight this (success story) and use it for what it is worth.” (Professional)

According to several stakeholders, job seekers with disabilities should serve as role models for society. As role models, they could help reduce stigma, promote inclusion, and pave the way for themselves and others.

During discussions, several methods were proposed to help highlight the success stories of people with disabilities. It was deemed important to identify individuals with disabilities and encourage them to be open about their situation. Some companies specifically invite people with disabilities to apply for jobs, for example, by stating this in their job advertisements. Another approach is for job seekers to disclose their disability during the application process, such as ticking an inclusion box on the application form. This box signals that people with disabilities are welcome to apply and ensures they will be considered for the position.

3.3. Celebrating the Disability

The professional stakeholders encouraged individuals with disabilities to openly display and use the unique traits and resources associated with their disability to improve their job prospects. Job seekers with disabilities had to promote themselves, their skills, and their resources to secure employment. The main idea was to celebrate the disability by taking control of the disability and displaying its strengths and highlighting its positive aspects. For instance, someone with dyslexia could present a strong memory as a rare skill. Involvement in user organisations could also be highlighted as relevant work experience. Having dual competence—both professional and experiential—could provide fresh perspectives or help promote universal design. It was considered important to impress the employer. Some professionals gave examples of individuals with disabilities who were hired because they charmed or made a lasting impression on the employer.

“One success story was the girl who had several gaps in her CV due to things that had happened to her. She told me: ‘Then came the day I realised the value of my experiences during the periods when I wasn’t working and learned to present them. I went straight into the interview, right, and presented (the experiences) convincing and almost prideful. (I told them to) Listen to me; I have completely different experiences than just the theoretical ones you seek.’ Her way of approaching the CV could completely blow the employer away.” (Professional)

Thus, several stakeholders believed that presenting the resources brought by the disability could make the job seeker more attractive to employers.

3.4. Challenging the Celebration Approach

Individuals with disabilities found it challenging to convey and present their strengths in relation to the job market’s needs, especially after years of focusing on the disability challenges to receive necessary support and accommodation in school. To support these students, stakeholders suggest that universities help identify their strengths, provide feedback on their skills, and create opportunities for them to connect with potential employers. To establish a solid academic foundation and a practical understanding of professional expectations, stakeholders recommended the involvement of alumni associations, job seeker courses, courses on employee rights, and close collaboration between academic institutions and employers.

According to several stakeholders, even with the requisite knowledge, many job seekers face difficulties emphasising their disabilities when seeking employment. Some student stakeholders experienced that focusing on their disability often overshadowed their academic achievements and prevented them from demonstrating their competence and expertise:

“This is probably due to the employer’s fascination. ‘Oh, that’s new to me. I need to hear more about it’. Unfortunately, they use the interview situation for this. Often, you need to elaborate and explain, perhaps challenges, but also qualifications, concerning the disability, instead of being allowed to talk about professional challenges and how you can contribute professionally (…) Then, the employer will likely end up saying, ‘it was a nice interview, and it was interesting, but I don’t know if you are right for us, because I don’t know anything about your professional qualifications’. Right? They don’t understand that they have interviewed in a way that prevented the jobseeker from discussing their professional qualifications.” (Individual with disability)

This made some student stakeholders hesitant to serve as role models. Some professionals and students felt that an interview was not an appropriate setting for changing attitudes. They argued that professional competence should be the focus of the interview rather than disability.

3.5. Seeing Disability as a Liability

Both students and professionals claimed that employers could be sceptical, fearing production losses and the need for accommodations that might accompany hiring someone with a disability. For example, one professional cited research indicating that individuals with visible impairments were 30 per cent less likely to receive an interview call.

Despite job postings encouraging individuals with disabilities to apply, some observed a disconnect between the companies’ stated values and their actions. Even though some companies invited individuals with disabilities for interviews, it did not necessarily mean that they would hire them:

“Sometimes I might be lucky enough to get to the first interview for a job, but then, it feels like the company is only doing it to tick the (inclusion) box: ‘We’ve interviewed an applicant with a disability, so we have done our part of the inclusion effort. We do not need to do more than that.’ I have been well qualified for many of the jobs I have applied for, and I don’t understand why I did not go further in the hiring process.” (Individual with disability)

Moreover, individuals with disabilities sometimes felt ashamed of their disability or considered themselves a burden. Lack of work experience, need for support, and fear of underperforming compared to colleagues made job seekers with disabilities feel like liabilities and less desirable in the job market. Students mentioned they were entering a challenging job market, where many were struggling to find employment despite having the necessary qualifications. A university degree was no longer enough—students also needed connections who could recommend them and provide references.

Gaining work experience while still studying was often the key to building these crucial networks. This way, they could obtain valuable experience and impress potential employers. However, balancing work and studies could be challenging for students with disabilities. They risked losing the financial benefits they received due to reduced work capacity. As a result, many students with disabilities chose not to work while studying and missed out on both work experience and references.

3.6. Providing Enlightenment and Support

Stakeholders recommended addressing scepticism about hiring individuals with disabilities by challenging prejudices and educating employers about how to accommodate potential challenges. The state and municipal stakeholders were actively working to identify potential employers for individuals with disabilities and to inform them about support programmes and opportunities. To combat prejudice, it was crucial to emphasise the diversity within different diagnoses and the valuable contributions individuals with dual competencies can make. Moreover, employers could receive convenient assistance, such as equipment and wage subsidies, when hiring individuals with disabilities. For instance, a professional stakeholder mentioned that employers were very interested in interpreting apps for the hearing impaired.

Employers and agencies that aimed to assist individuals with disabilities relied on job seekers to disclose their disabilities so that support systems could be activated. If job seekers knew where to find them, various resources would be available to help. For example, career counsellors at the university could help students identify their resources and how to use them. A collaborative organisation between the state and the municipality in Norway that offered social services, called The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV), provided career counselling and support services such as ramps, interpreters, mentors, wage subsidies, job training, and assistance with communication with employers.

To further promote disclosure, stakeholders suggested ways for employers to address disability during job interviews. According to the Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act [38], employers were prohibited from directly asking job seekers about their disabilities. However, they could ask about the candidates’ strengths, weaknesses, experience managing stress, and whether any factors could affect their day-to-day work. Another suggestion was to ask about their ability to work additional hours and how they could contribute to the company.

3.7. Informing the Employer

Individuals with first-hand experience of disability were considered the best educators in terms of their skills and needs. Sharing this information could benefit society and create opportunities for others with disabilities. As a result, many stakeholders encouraged disclosing the disability, often praising those who did so as “honest,” “open,” and “skilled” at disclosing. Additionally, disclosure was considered essential for job seekers to receive the necessary accommodations in their jobs:

“I would say that being honest about the disability from the start, already in the job interview, and describing a bit about potential challenges means that you can consider accommodation from day one and perhaps avoid unnecessary challenges. So, I believe that openness is always best.” (Professional)

Some students and professionals considered it necessary to declare any impairment that could affect work tasks. By providing information about their disability, job seekers could bridge knowledge gaps and inform employers about potential challenges and how to handle them. Some professionals considered disclosure the most common approach. They suggested that job seekers practice their disclosure, presenting solutions alongside challenges to mitigate concerns:

“To make it less threatening and reassure the employers, show them that ‘I have got it figured out. Somebody will support me. I’ve done my research on this.’ ‘Well, all right then,’ the employer will think. At least, that’s what they tell us. They must be presented with the solutions together with the challenge if you understand!” (Professional)

According to the stakeholders, it was particularly important to present themselves positively if the disability was visible, potentially needing to “sell themselves twice as much,” emphasising the value they bring to the team despite any additional costs.

3.8. Challenging the Informing Approach

The stakeholders concurred that informing about the disability required much preparation. Job seekers had to navigate the support system and understand how to clarify misunderstandings, discourage biases, and compensate for limitations. They had to familiarise themselves with the workplace to identify where they could contribute and explain how to mitigate potential problems. Several students were unaware of their rights, available support, resources, and responsibilities in arranging accommodations. Due to their lack of prior work experience, they were often unsure about where they needed help. Furthermore, obtaining help was not always as easy as it seemed:

“Dealing with various agencies and getting started in the system is difficult and requires twice as much fighting. It’s not just a matter of pressing a button. You need to press the button several times.” (Professional)

Some students lacked the time and endurance to gather information and facilitate accommodation.

Students also feared that disclosing their disability in a job application would shift the focus of the interview to their disability rather than their abilities. Several student stakeholders had negative experiences when disclosing their disability before an interview, feeling that they had to defend themselves and explain how their disability would not hinder their job performance:

“For instance, (in student Discussion Group) it was mentioned that they needed to defend gaps in their resumes due to a lack of work experience or the holding of various positions while studying. That they had spent more time studying due to a disability. Then they had to defend themselves in the interview. And you must expose yourself. It becomes a topic, and it can bring up different attitudes.” (Individual with disability)

To avoid thorough disclosure, some opted for employers who were already knowledgeable about their disability and accommodations, such as an organisation specialising in their disability.

3.9. Concealing the Disability

There was a consensus that job seekers had the right to keep their disabilities private. Although most professionals emphasised the benefits of employers being aware of disabilities, and both students and professionals highlighted the responsibility to spread positive information, be role models, and pave the way for others with disabilities, there were valid reasons for not disclosing. A few professionals advised students to be “strategic and cynical” when deciding whether to disclose:

“I believe that you must be very strategic. In a way, we all use terminology like “selling yourself on the open job market”. Right? And those are terrible terms to use. But that’s what it’s all about. So, you must be both strategic and cynical. It’s both personal and professional advice, I would say.” (Professional)

Non-visible impairments could be concealed. Some professionals advised job seekers to consider societal attitudes. If the disability had a stigma attached to it, disclosing it could lead to negative attitudes and discrimination. In such cases, concealing the disability could be the best option:

“Sometimes, attitudes exist that make it necessary for you to consider whether to reveal that you have an impairment carefully. Sometimes, it may be best not to disclose it at all. It depends on what it is. If you have a serious condition or tendencies towards, for example, depression, I don’t think you should disclose it.” (Professional)

Some believed not mentioning a disability could improve job chances, as applicants would be judged on competence. Once hired, they could demonstrate their abilities, making disability less of an issue. It is easier to keep a job than acquire one, and employers may be more willing to accommodate current employees. Support schemes may only be available to permanent staff, so it was suggested that a disability be revealed only after being hired.

Some student stakeholders did not check the inclusion box when applying for jobs. Even if hiring focused on people with disabilities, some hid their disability to be judged on their abilities, not as a “charity case”. Some avoided mentioning participation in aid programmes, fearing employers might assume lower productivity.

3.10. Challenging the Concealment Approach

The decision to conceal the disability could mean the company missed an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to inclusion. As a professional at a company, aiming for five percent of the employees to have a disability, said:

“As employers, we rely on applicants to tick the inclusion box for our inclusion allowance quota. But some jobseekers needing permanent accommodation may deliberately choose not to do so—and we must respect that. The only difference for us is that we can’t count them toward our five percent target.” (Professional)

Several professional stakeholders described not disclosing a disability as “keeping it a secret,” “concealing,” or “hiding it.” Disclosing was encouraged, and some warned against not performing such:

“I believe that not disclosing something and keeping it hidden will cause fear regardless, because if the employer were to discover it later on, they might be unsure how to act on it.” (Professional)

Both professionals and stakeholders with disabilities believed that not disclosing a disability could disappoint employers, cause missed opportunities to educate about accommodations, and force individuals to compensate on their own, sometimes working twice as hard.

3.11. Seeing Disability as Insignificant

The perception of disability as insignificant was not often voiced in the workshops, but it did emerge occasionally. Some professionals stated that people with disabilities do not necessarily face greater challenges than others, as insecurity and hurdles are part of everyone’s job search. New tools can help compensate for impairments, so the challenges are not out of the ordinary. If disability is not significant, there is no need for specific efforts for job seekers with disabilities. Still, general support is helpful since many people without disabilities also face employment barriers, such as financial or caregiving challenges. Most will need some assistance at work at some point, like a mentor when starting a new job.

4. Discussion

The results reveal society’s conflicting attitudes toward disability, the complexities of disclosing a disability, and the significant differences in the advice provided by various stakeholders. The perspective that disability is insignificant was not thoroughly addressed in the workshops, likely because they specifically focused on disability, leading the invited stakeholders to recognise disability as an important issue. In the discussions, the two most commonly expressed perspectives on disability during the transition from higher education to the job market were considered: seeing disability as either an asset or a liability. The article also explores how these perspectives impact the promotion of inclusion for individuals with disabilities in the workforce, as well as the advice stakeholders offer regarding disability disclosure. Additionally, some of the contradictions found in the study are highlighted and related to previous research on the employment of individuals with disabilities.

4.1. A Discrepancy in Views on Disability and Disclosure

All workshop participants expressed positive views toward individuals with disabilities and supported their employment. Yet, the analysis revealed disagreements among participants about current job market realities and how individuals with disabilities should approach disclosure—ranging from openly sharing to concealing their disability.

In the workshops, some professional stakeholders predicted positive outcomes if individuals disclosed their disabilities. They argued that full disclosure was always best, anticipating benefits such as workforce integration and role-model status. Employing candidates with disabilities has numerous benefits [3]. Nevertheless, several studies indicate that disclosing a disability can lead to negative attitudes and discrimination, resulting in individuals being excluded from job opportunities [13,23,24,39,40]. For instance, Bjørnshagen and Ugreninov’s study [39] found that disclosing one’s wheelchair use reduced the probability of being invited to a job interview by 48 percent. Several of the stakeholders in the workshops worried that disabilities would be seen as a liability and lead to exclusion. When impairments were visible, they recommended addressing potential prejudice proactively by emphasising positive aspects or explaining accommodation strategies. This approach can allow candidates to discuss their disability instead of the employer making assumptions about it [41]. Moreover, if the impairment was not visible, some of the stakeholders recommended assessing whether one should disclose the disability against societal attitudes and the stigma associated with specific diagnoses.

Several studies show that prejudice is linked to impairments [42]. However, the group perceived as the least employable varies across studies. Berre’s study found that blind individuals were perceived as the least employable [24], while Goodall indicates that individuals with autism were viewed as the most challenging to employ [43]. Additionally, individuals who use wheelchairs have been rated as less likely to be chosen for a job interview [19]. In contrast, job seekers with generalised anxiety have been considered the least suitable for job tasks [19]. This suggests that, although prejudices are evident across different diagnoses, it is difficult to pinpoint the specific biases held by employers and others involved in the hiring process.

4.2. The Unclear Line Between Disability Disclosure, Identity, and Roles

Negative attitudes and prejudices related to disabilities can make disclosure risky. However, the analysis also showed that not disclosing carries certain risks. Consistent encouragement to disclose their disabilities compelled graduates with disabilities to factor in their disabilities during the hiring process. As a result, these job seekers faced a significant dilemma: they had to choose between taking an altruistic approach by revealing what they perceived as a potential weakness for the benefit of others or adopting a strategic approach that might involve lying or concealing part of their disability to improve their chances of being hired. This decision, in turn, could affect not only how the candidates viewed themselves but also how others perceived them.

During the analysis, a fine line between the disability and the person holding it was observed. It was difficult to determine whether the disability or the job seeker was considered a “liability” or an “asset.” Additionally, whether the job seekers disclosed their disability or not was associated with specific traits. Opting not to reveal a disability was often seen as a closed, dishonest, and cynical trait, while disclosing it was linked with positive characteristics, such as openness, honesty, and setting a good example. The language used to describe not disclosing a disability can make it seem like a betrayal, while the favourable terms used for disclosing suggest it is the right thing to do. This indicates that while it may be legally acceptable to choose not to disclose a disability, it may not be entirely socially acceptable.

The fear of social consequences if the disability was later revealed added a significant layer of complexity to the decision-making process. Humans are social beings who fear rejection and seek acceptance and approval from others [44]. Although the job seeker’s social fit was not a significant topic in the workshops, it has been addressed in other studies. When evaluating a potential employee with a disability, employers consider social factors as well as their ability to perform work tasks effectively [45]. Appearing as a reliable and trustworthy colleague is essential for being accepted in a new work environment. It will also affect the work the employee is set to do. For example, a stronger sense of belonging in the workplace can help prevent productivity losses due to health issues [46]. Due to the negative connotations of not disclosing a disability, present research suggests that individuals with disabilities may feel pressured to reveal their condition to avoid the risk of being exposed at a later point.

Another factor to consider regarding disclosure is how job seekers perceive themselves. How individuals choose to share information about their disabilities plays a vital role in shaping their identity [47]. However, the study reveals a challenge: many individuals with disabilities struggle to view their unique experiences as assets when moving from higher education into the workforce. In academia, students with disabilities often feel compelled to detail their challenges to secure necessary accommodations [33,34]. Yet, as they transition to job applications, they are expected to highlight their strengths, serve as role models, reassure employers of their capabilities, and demonstrate that they can perform as well—if not better—than their peers without disabilities. This shift from discussing challenges to emphasising strengths was difficult for several student stakeholders, making it hard for them to “celebrate” their abilities during interviews.

Moreover, many individuals may hesitate to express their needs due to feelings of shame, guilt, or fear of shifting from a supportive role to one of dependency [47]. However, disclosing disabilities can lead to positive outcomes. The analysis suggested that disclosing disabilities can shift one’s role from being seen as a burden to becoming an asset to others, serving as an inspiring role model. This viewpoint is further supported by research demonstrating that success stories can raise awareness of individuals with disabilities’ capabilities within society and illustrate the benefits of hiring them for both employers and job seekers [3,42]. Knowing someone with a disability tends to foster more positive attitudes toward disability and increases the likelihood of hiring candidates with disabilities [15]. These factors likely contribute to why students and professional stakeholders in the study believe that promoting disclosure and showcasing individuals with disabilities as positive examples are essential for fostering an inclusive society.

Unfortunately, the pressure to stand out and become a representative for others with the same disability might not be something everyone is comfortable with. Moreover, individuals with disabilities may be at risk of losing the opportunity to have an identity that is not linked to their disability. Some studies have found that employees with disabilities are hired primarily as “tokens,” experiencing discrimination and becoming symbols to enhance a company’s image and moral standing rather than being valued for their skills [5].

4.3. Society’s Pivotal Actions

The stakeholders emphasised the critical role of individuals with disabilities in promoting a more inclusive society through open communication. Nevertheless, the high risks involved in disclosure suggest that society’s role in ensuring the candidates benefit from disclosure is crucial. The stakeholders emphasised the responsibility of employers and universities to facilitate inclusion. The university was recognised as a place where students with disabilities could improve their ability to market themselves. The university could provide opportunities for them to present themselves to potential employers, help them identify their strengths, and enhance their job-related skills. This necessitated collaboration between universities, the labour market, and public agencies to understand the job market’s needs and actively work to ensure that students had the necessary skills. However, Shaw et al. [21] argue that the assumption that the exclusion of persons with disabilities is mainly due to their lack of skills or capacity is oversimplified. The authors point out that societal attitudinal and structural aspects must also be addressed. The present study suggests that simply improving candidates’ skills may not be enough if they are not allowed to demonstrate their abilities.

Several studies have shown that employers with ableist attitudes often compare individuals with disabilities to “ideal workers” who are expected to be highly productive and able to work long hours without interruptions [5,13,45,48]. Individuals with disabilities often assess their suitability for different positions and avoid applying for roles they feel unable to fulfil because of their condition [6,49]. Nevertheless, the present results reveal that job seekers with disabilities must still explain how they can manage their presence at work rather than focusing solely on their professional competencies. Thus, the present study confirms that disability has master status [24] in the job search process.

Vedeler’s [41] analysis of a job interview at a Norwegian company that values diversity revealed that the employer used language that focused on the candidate’s weaknesses rather than their strengths. The emphasis was on the candidate’s limitations and what accommodations might be necessary, rather than on the candidate’s potential contributions and how the company’s inclusion policy could support the employee. Vedeler argues that the language used by the employer reflects the prevailing culture, policies, and regulations within the Norwegian labour market [41]. This indicates the need to enable employers to shift their focus when interviewing and assessing new candidates.

To do this, research suggests that companies require more awareness about disabilities, the companies’ obligations toward individuals with disabilities, and the available support options [6,42,50]. Having anti-discrimination laws is not sufficient to encourage companies to hire individuals with disabilities [51]. Vornholt et al. [10] claim that focusing solely on meeting a quota may cause hiring someone with a disability to be viewed as a burden rather than a valuable addition to the workforce. To resolve this issue, it is essential to implement targeted interventions to assist employers [51]. A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy and understanding of public compensation schemes can lead to more positive attitudes and approaches toward individuals with disabilities [15]. The stakeholders have highlighted the vital role of the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) in providing social services and assisting individuals with disabilities and employers in navigating the hiring process and work life. NAV plays a crucial role in educating and encouraging companies to adopt inclusive practices for individuals with disabilities, and in assisting them in developing inclusive hiring plans [51]. However, the support system must be effective and easy to navigate for employers to use [51].

Interestingly, some structural factors not fully discussed in the workshops include universal design and public compensation schemes. This absence is notable, as work participation depends not only on individual ability, but also on workplace barriers [10]. Universal design means making products and environments usable for everyone, and in Norway, workplaces must be universally designed where possible [52], increasing job chances for people with disabilities [15]. An inclusive labour market lets everyone participate to their fullest [53]. Accommodations should go beyond physical changes: some need extra time, reduced hours, or remote work to stay employed [6]. Employers must be aware of support options and have the tools to implement them [42].

4.4. Limitations and Research Recommendations

While many studies focusing on disabilities only capture the views of a limited range of stakeholders, this study is based on the perspectives of 46 workshop participants with diverse roles, competencies, and experiences. The study did not apply the full set of procedures typically associated with constructivist grounded theory and therefore does not reflect a fully developed grounded theory. In particular, the analysis was conducted retrospectively, theoretical sampling was not conducted in the strict sense, and theoretical saturation was not claimed. However, the workshop design was iterative and conceptually responsive: each workshop informed the design of the next, and new participants were invited based on insights emerging from the previous rounds. This allowed for thoroughly exploration of the complex transition to working life for students with disabilities.

The study is not designed as a comparative analysis of professionals, employers, and students. Although the study included multiple stakeholders, an integrated analytic approach was opted for rather than a formal comparison. This allowed for the identification of shared processes across roles and a focus on the transversal dynamics of disclosure, which were strongly present in the material. Such an approach aligns with the inductive, constructivist grounded theory-inspired design and supports the development of categories that capture broader, cross-stakeholder patterns rather than reinforcing predefined group boundaries.

The data indicate mostly shared understandings rather than strong contrasts between them. This convergence can support the practical relevance of the findings, as it suggests that multiple stakeholders share a broadly similar view of disclosure as both beneficial and risky. Such a shared perspective may strengthen the legitimacy and applicability of future guidelines on disclosure, precisely because they reflect a widely held, cross-cutting understanding of the issues involved.

At the same time, analysing stakeholders collectively has limitations. A non-comparative approach means that potential nuances between groups may be less visible, and some group-specific differences might remain underexplored. A design explicitly structured for comparison could have revealed divergences that fall outside the scope of the inductive focus. We acknowledge this as a methodological trade-off inherent in the chosen design.

Further, the context in which the study was conducted should be taken into account. The study was conducted in Norway. Expenditures on active labour market policies and disability benefits differ from one country to another. This generates context-specific knowledge for the Norwegian transition landscape, where employment gaps persist despite strong welfare supports, and offers practical implications for career guidance, educator training, and employer policies aligned with CRPD goals. Similarly, employment gaps between individuals with disabilities and those without differ. Further studies conducted in other countries or settings can provide insights into different aspects of the transition to working life and make comparisons possible [12].

Additionally, the subcategory “Viewing disability as insignificant” was not thoroughly examined in this study. However, this perspective surfaced occasionally and was incorporated into the analysis because it clearly contrasted with the other viewpoints. Research into this perspective could provide new insights. Moreover, there is a need for further exploration of how to facilitate work inclusion in a way that society as a whole and individuals with disabilities can benefit from. The study suggests that individuals with disabilities should not be solely responsible for changing attitudes towards them. They have the right to make their own choices and form their identity without feeling like they are representing all individuals with disabilities. More research should be conducted to find ways of easing the disclosure process and reducing the potential adverse outcomes of disclosure.

Future research should examine multi-level strategies to reduce stigma and strengthen inclusive organisational practices around disclosure, ideally through longitudinal and comparative studies across sectors and disability groups. Further work is needed to identify practical tools that support individuals in navigating disclosure and to understand how negative consequences such as discrimination can be reduced. Methodological approaches centred on the perspectives of individuals with disabilities will be essential for ensuring that future interventions are grounded in lived experience.

5. Conclusions

This study explored how multiple stakeholders—students with disabilities, university professionals, and employers—understand disability and disclosure in the transition from higher education to the labour market. By integrating these perspectives, the research highlights how disclosure decisions are socially negotiated across contexts rather than determined solely by individual choice. Findings show that disabilities may be perceived as an asset, a liability, or irrelevant to employability, depending on situational factors and stakeholders’ assumptions. This interpretation shaped the tone and content of efforts to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities, focusing on either fostering positive attitudes towards disability or providing support schemes for inclusion. Analysis also reveals that both disclosure and non-disclosure carry the potential for inclusion and exclusion, underscoring the complex relational dynamics underpinning disclosure practices. Conceptually, the study points to the need for inclusion approaches that extend beyond individual responsibility and toward structural and cultural conditions that support equal participation in working life. Therefore, the study can enrich theoretical debates on agency and social inclusion during the transition from education to work, and points to the need for institutional arrangements that ease the disclosure burden placed on individuals.