Social Factors Causing Burnout of Disabled Students: Views of One Group of Allies of Disabled People

Abstract

Burnout among students is a widely recognized concern, yet little research has focused on the experiences of disabled students and even less on the social factors at and off campus that contribute to their burnout. To address this gap, we surveyed 91 undergraduate students enrolled in a critical disability studies course at a Canadian university using an online qualitative survey approach. These students, many of whom see themselves as allies of disabled people, were asked whether they believe disabled students are at risk of burnout and what they perceive to be the causes. The majority viewed disabled students as being at significant risk, and 92% identified the social environment as the contributor. Attitudinal inaccessibility, including discrimination, stigma, and exclusion, has emerged as the leading factor in both university settings and broader societal contexts. These findings suggest that interventions to reduce burnout must address both educational environments and the wider lived realities of disabled students. This study contributes to the limited literature on burnout among disabled students and highlights the importance of ally perspectives in understanding and addressing systemic contributors to burnout.

1. Introduction

“School burnout is currently operationalized through three components: exhaustion due to study demands, cynical attitude toward school, and feelings of inadequacy or low self-efficacy as a student” [1] (p. 501), and school burnout syndrome is defined “as a state of unique and comprehensive physical, cognitive, and emotional collapse—a breakdown that occurs when a student confronts an overwhelming loss of purpose and passion in their educational journey and, at the same time, lacks necessary support from the family and school, due to insufficient teachers’ competencies and engagement and overall grades-related pressure in schools and society” [1] (p. 513). Disabled students (we acknowledge that people have different preferences as to whether to use people-first language (people with disabilities) or identity-first language (disabled people). In this paper, we use the term “disabled students”, consistent with critical disability studies literature that frames disability as a social identity and emphasizes systemic barriers (disablism) rather than individual deficits. We acknowledge, however, that major legislation uses people first terminology) face many challenges and barriers as students [2,3,4,5,6,7,8], all of which can lead to student burnout. However, in our pre-search for this study, we found few studies that examine the social factors contributing to burnout among disabled students. Disabled students see the need to have allies among other students [9], including fellow disabled students [10,11,12,13]. Students from critical disability studies degrees see themselves as allies of disabled people [14], and one assumes that includes disabled students. However, we could not find any studies that examined the views of disability studies students on the lived realities of disabled students and the risk of burnout. As such, our study aims to fill this gap by asking critical disability studies students their views on (a) the danger of burnout of disabled students and (b) the cause of that burnout. Our study aims to not only make visible the under-researched topic of burnout of disabled students but also to give voice to one of the most natural allies of disabled students on campus, namely, students in disability studies.

1.1. Burnout of Students

There are many studies that investigate student burnout, although most focus on using burnout measures to indicate the presence of burnout rather than its causes. To outline, some social factors for burnout that are mentioned in the literature. A 2025 study [15] performed a systematic review of factors causing student burnout, identifying the school environment as one main factor. In relation to the school environment, the authors identified “five aspects of students’ experiences in school: (1) students’ perceptions of their teachers; (2) relationships among students; (3) students’ attitudes toward their school, such as sense of belonging and satisfaction with the school experience; (4) students’ perception of the school management; and (5) students’ feelings of self-worth and the importance accorded to them by others within the school” [15] (p. 4) from [16]. In [17], the identified factors were linked to school attachment, with burnout factors characterized by lower feelings of success and higher emotional exhaustion. Studies indicated the excessive use of digital technologies [18,19,20] and the impact of moving teaching online during COVID-19 [21,22]. Family support is noted to help reduce the risk of students experiencing burnout [23,24] as is social support [25] (e.g., feelings of being respected and understood) and the utilization of support (e.g., seeking help from others) [26]. Then there were psychosocial factors, such as positive relationships [27], higher curiosity, academic buoyancy, social engagement, sense of belonging [28], empathy [29], emotional intelligence in particular, stress management and mood, grit [28,30], hope and pride [31], positive and optimistic attitudes [32], students who actively enhance their resources and seek challenging demands (e.g., volunteering for complex projects, participating in research, taking on leadership roles in student organizations) [33]. High neuroticism has been identified as a leading factor in burnout [34]. Coping is seen as important [35,36]. It is noted in the literature that student burnout differs between genders [24,30,32,37,38,39] and that Black students are more affected than students from other ethnic groups [40].

Other studies not covered by the systematic review identify factors that affect the relationships people develop with their work, i.e., workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values [41]; for PhD students, a lack of interest in their research [42], lack of teacher leadership [43], learning environment, and a negative personal life event [44], parental burnout [45], a negative school climate [46], low quality of life (health, self-esteem, spiritual, money or standards of living, work, play, helping, friendship, sibling relationships, spiritual, learning, creativity, family, neighborhood, and community) [47], perceived pressure by parents and peers [48]. Self-esteem was seen as a protective factor [49,50,51]. Various studies indicate the need for more research to identify the social and environmental factors contributing to student burnout [52,53]. Internal factors were loss of meaning, intense emotional reactions and states, perceived incompetence triggered by comparison with classmates, guilt-induced withdrawal, and impaired physical health. External factors included an unsupportive and pressuring family and disengaged teachers [1].

1.2. Burnout of Disabled Students

In a 2023 scoping review on the burnout of disabled people in general, it is noted that there were few studies that covered the burnout of disabled people [54]. Using the same databases as in the scoping review, we determined the coverage of students with disabilities in the academic literature. Searching Scopus, the 70 databases of EBSCO-HOST, and Web of Science for abstracts that contained the terms “burnout” and “student*” and (“disabled” OR “disabilit*” OR “impair*” OR “deaf” OR “neurodiver*” OR “dyslexia” OR “ADHD” OR “autism” OR “ASD” OR “attention deficit” OR “autistic” OR “wheelchair*”), we found 474 abstracts. After eliminating duplicates due to abstracts being mentioned in more than one database, 249 abstracts remained. The majority of the 249 abstracts indicated that teachers of disabled children could experience burnout (e.g., [55,56,57,58]), which fits with the burnout study that focused on the burnout of disabled people in general and found that the majority of sources saw disabled people as causing the burnout in other people [54]. Of the 249 abstracts in our pre-search for this study, only 8 abstracts had content that covered the burnout of disabled students. One study was not relevant but interesting, as it argued that teachers who have a negative view of their disabled students burn out more easily than those who have a positive view of their disabled students [59]. Regarding the relevant studies, we were particularly interested in whether they identified social factors within schools and universities, as well as externally, such as in the lived reality of disabled students, which contributed to burnout. As to the relevant studies, only five focused on the risk of burnout. Four reported an increased risk of burnout of disabled students, not the social factors [60,61,62,63]. In another study, it was reported that burnout risk increases with the number of ‘disability’ characteristics one has, with 1 and multiple disabilities being at 70% and 254% greater risk of burnout than their peers [64]. The intersectionality of a disabled person is identified to increase the danger of burnout [61,64], but both studies do not say why.

We found only three studies that highlighted the causes of burnout. As to factors for students with learning disabilities, class delivery was identified as a factor [65]. For autistic students, the only “predictor of academic burnout was personal burnout” [62] (p. 1664), a finding that the authors saw as making sense because “if someone is generally exhausted, they also feel exhausted with academic life, and vice versa” [62] (p. 1664). The authors also noted, “Unmeasured variables unique to autistic burnout may play a greater role than those measured in the current study”, and argued that “The fact that autistic characteristics predicted burnout may indicate that those with autistic traits may invest energy into masking these or experience some stigma associated with their traits, linking to depleted mental resources and more burnout” [62] (p. 1664). The third study identified the following problems faced by neurodivergent student teachers: barriers to success, overcoming additional systemic barriers to achieve the same results as their neurotypical peers, accessibility, and the attitudes of others, which impacted their opportunities for disclosure, inclusion, and support. Burnout was not explicitly asked about in the interview question but was in the wording of one answer of one participant [66]. It was also noted that there might be a hierarchy of neurodivergence acceptability [66]. Various studies have called for more research into the causes of burnout of disabled students [60,62,63].

To conclude:

Despite the growing body of literature on student burnout, disabled students remain largely invisible in these discussions, particularly in relation to the social and structural factors that contribute to burnout. Existing studies focus predominantly on internal characteristics or treat disabled students as a source of burnout for others, rather than examining their lived experiences. Moreover, there is a notable lack of research capturing how those trained in disability studies, students who are often both critically informed and closely aligned with disabled people, understand the causes of burnout among disabled students. This study addresses this gap by exploring the perspectives of students in a critical disability studies program on (a) whether they believe disabled students are at risk of burnout and (b) what they perceive to be the primary causes of that burnout. In doing so, we aim to center the voices of students who are potential allies of disabled students and disabled people in general in identifying social and systemic contributors to burnout and to deepen understanding of what factors within the learning environment and outside in their lived reality lead to the burnout of disabled students.

2. Method

2.1. Study Design

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethics approval granted by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Calgary; Approval number REB 23-0605, 22 July 2023. It examines the perspectives of 91 undergraduate students enrolled in a critical disability studies course at one Canadian university about the burnout of disabled students. Our study can be classified as an online qualitative survey [67], as open-ended questions were the main source used to obtain the data for this study, which focused on the views of participants on the social factors that lead to the danger of burnout of disabled students. The online qualitative survey was distributed via the Canadian university’s Qualtrics online platform.

Students completed the survey as part of a standard course assignment. The deadline for the disabled student survey, for which we present the answers, was 4 October 2024, and the results were part of the week 13 lecture on burnout and allyship, which took place on 25 November, 2024. The responses, therefore, captured students’ perspectives prior to engaging with the lecture material on the topic.

In compliance with the ethics approval from the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Calgary; Approval number REB 23-0605, 22 July 2023), students saw this as a normal course assignment. After the instructor had given the final marks for the course and they were approved by the university, the students were asked by email whether they would agree to the data being used without attribution for a potential publication. The course assignment content of any student who did not agree would have been removed by the instructor before the analysis (no students asked for removal).

The wording of the questions was piloted with a small group of neurodiverse students, as well as with former students from the class and colleagues familiar with disability studies pedagogy. In all cases, no concerns about the clarity of the question language were raised.

2.2. Theoretical Lens

We interpret our findings through the field [68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76] and methodology [77] of critical/disability studies, which investigates the social and lived experience of disabled people as well as disablism, which is the systemic discrimination based on not measuring up to irrelevant ability norms [78]. This focus also aligns with ability-based studies, which include three strands: ability expectation and ableism studies [79,80,81], studies in ableism [82,83,84], and critical studies of ableism [75,85]). Covering the Global South, authors of one article write, “Critical disability studies (CDS), or critical disability theory (CDT)², includes interdisciplinary approaches to analyze disability as a socio-political, historical, and cultural phenomenon that is shaped by symbolic and sociocultural structures, political ideas, literary representations, narratives, and practices in various world settings” [86] (pp. 1–2).

Disability studies courses are grounded in advancing social justice for disabled people [87] and in questioning the narrative around the normative body [88]. Critical disability studies seek to disrupt traditional research boundaries [89] and enhance the lived reality of disabled people in all their facets [71]. Disability Justice adds intersectionality to the mix [90,91,92,93,94] and serves as a main lens in teaching critical disability studies [95,96]. The field is also closely linked to critical pedagogy [97,98]. As one definition explains, “Critical disability studies considers how institutions, cities, or societies ‘dis-able’ people systemically and socially as well as looking into how the body and impairment can critically be incorporated into the discussions of disability and disablement” [99]. See also the “iHuman Critical Disability Studies” program at the University of Sheffield [100], and for one of her last musings about the field, see the views of the late critical disability studies scholar Anita Ghai from India, a pioneer in disability studies/critical disability studies and the role of disabled women [101].

2.3. Research Questions

The aim of this study was to contribute to closing the research gap on the social factors that increase the danger of burnout of disabled students. Two main research questions were asked: (1) Are disabled students in danger of burnout? And (2) What are the social factors that lead to the burnout of disabled students?

As to the actual survey questions:

We did not ask demographic questions (see more under limitation).

The survey participants were first given the following definition: “Burnout may be defined as a state of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion that results from long-term involvement in work situations that are emotionally demanding” [102] (p. 501), whereby it was noted that one could see being a student as work.

Participants were asked as the first question:

• Question 1:

(1) Do you think disabled students/students with disabilities are in danger of burnout?

This question was asked to generate a percentage-based overview of the views of the disability studies class on the risk of burnout among disabled students, based on the definition provided to them.

• Question 2:

There are two main categories that could be the cause of the danger of burnout for disabled students. Participants who said yes to the first question were presented with two options for the origin of the burnout: (a) the body/mind not being ability normative (what many label as an impairment) or (b) the social environment, social context, sociocultural context, or milieu. To offer these two options was in sync with the general debate around the disablement of disabled people and within disability studies and with the teaching in a disability studies program. This question was designed to see how the class, collectively, understood the origins of disabled student burnout. From a disability studies perspective, this distinction is critical, and it was also important for the students themselves to reflect on where they perceived the danger of burnout to originate.

Students were aware that they could select both options if they agreed with both.

• Question 3 and 4:

After the two percentage-based questions were asked, we then asked the two open-ended qualitative questions focusing on the social factors (within and outside the learning environment) increasing the danger of burnout of disabled students that are the focus of this study.

The question was, “The ones who answered yes for the “social environment...” were then asked about the social factors (a) at the place of learning and (b) outside the place of learning so in the daily lived reality of the disabled student that they see to add to the danger of burnout of disabled students”.

Our focus on the social factors is in sync with the focus of disability studies but also justified by the existing burnout literature. Much of the literature frames disabled people as contributing to the burnout of others [54]. In our pre-study review, we identified only eight abstracts addressing disabled student burnout (see Section 1.2). Of these, four reported an increased risk of burnout among disabled students using quantitative measures such as the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory for Medical Students, the Medical Student Well-being Index (MS-WBI), and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory [60,61,62,63]. However, these studies did not examine the causes of burnout or the social factors that contribute to it. Only three studies touched on the causes of burnout, with one linking the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory to the Basic Psychological Needs measure but not asking students in depth about the social factors leading to burnout [65]. The second one used the subscales for personal burnout and work-related burnout of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory but then stated that “Unmeasured variables unique to autistic burnout may play a greater role than those measured in the current study” [62] (p. 1664), suggesting some limitation with the subscales. The third study asked participants about their lived experience as neurodivergent student teachers in a university education program, but the actual interview questions did not address burnout [66].

By contrast, our study explicitly asked about social factors both within and outside the learning environment. This approach aligns not only with disability studies literature but also with research on work/life balance [103,104], whereby the learning at the institution can be seen as work.

In tune with the work life balance literature, one should expect that the experiences outside the classroom shape how students experience their learning environments. Disabled people are seen to be in danger of experiencing disability burnout, as in disablism burnout, due to their negative treatment in their daily lives [54]. For example, Gill, the former director of the oldest disability studies program in North America, states the following:

“After struggling with employment bias, poverty, blocked access to the community and its resources, unaccommodating and selective health services, lack of accessible and affordable housing, penalizing welfare policies, and lack of accessible transportation, some may experience what is known in the disability community as “disability burn-out.” This term refers to emotional despair engendered by thwarted opportunities and blocked goals. It is aggravated and intensified by years of exposure to disability prejudice and devaluation. In fact, a frequently repeated theme in research interviews with persons with disabilities and illnesses is, “I can live with my physical condition but I’m tired of struggling against the way I’m treated”” [105] (p. 180).

2.4. Participants for Surveys

We selected disability studies students as our participants because disability studies courses are based on furthering social justice for disabled people [87] and enhancing the lived reality of disabled people in all their facets [71]. Disability studies students are concerned about the ability of disabled people to have a good life in sync with the field of disability studies, which investigates the lived experience of disabled people [68,69]. We decided to focus in particular on critical disability studies students because disability studies students (1) aim to engage with the social problems disabled people face in order to make a positive difference in the lives of disabled people [106], (2) see themselves as allies of disabled people [14], and (3) want to raise awareness about the problematic lived reality of disabled people [107].

2.5. Data Analysis and Trustworthiness Measures

Quantitative descriptive percentage data was extracted and analyzed using Qualtrics’s intrinsic frequency distribution analysis capability.

The results of the open-ended questions were downloaded as a single PDF file, with no mention of the students’ names. We performed a directed thematic analysis [108,109] following the six-phase thematic analysis process outlined by Braun and Clarke [109]. As our study was a qualitative study, there was no aim to generalize our findings. Using trustworthiness measures used for qualitative data [110,111,112], as to confidence, this is a class assignment, and the instructor was deeply engaged with participants. Also, peer debriefing between the authors was employed in the analysis, and the few differences in codes and theme suggestions of the qualitative data were discussed between the authors and revised as needed [111]. Confirmability is evident in the audit trail made possible by the comment function in the Adobe Acrobat software (version 2025) used [113]. As for transferability, the description of our method gives all the required information for others to decide whether they want to use our qualitative online survey in other settings. Similar groups, such as disability studies students from other institutions (including in the Global South) and at different degree stages, could be asked the same questions.

We also note that the questions should be understandable beyond disability studies contexts. For example, students not enrolled in disability studies programs could also respond to questions 1 and 3–4, though their answers may differ depending on their prior exposure to disabled students and disabled people more broadly. Question 2, option 1, could be tested for clarity with these groups, but we do not anticipate that the wording would present a problem.

3. Result

When asked whether disabled students or students with disabilities are in danger of burnout, the answers were as follows:

3.1. Percentage Numbers of Answers to Research Questions 1 and 2

In writing, 93.41% of the disability studies students responded with Yes (n = 85), with no respondents selecting No (0.0%, n = 0), and a small proportion indicating Don’t Know/Can’t Say (6.59%, n = 6) (

Table 1. Answers to the question: Are disabled students or students with disabilities in danger of burnout (n = 91 responses)?

Yes	No	Don’t Know
93.41%	0.0%	6.59%

).

Students were then asked about the perceived origins of this burnout, with two possible sources of the origin provided: (A) “the body/mind not being ability normative (what many label as impairment),” and (B) the social environment, social context, sociocultural context, or milieu (

Table 2. Answers to the question on the origin of the burnout (more than one response was possible) (n = 91 responses).

Origin of the Burnout	Yes	No	Don’t Know
“the body/mind not being ability normative (what many label as impairment),”	62.92% (n = 56)	20.22 (n = 18)	16.85% (n = 15)
“the social environment, social context, sociocultural context, or milieu”	92.22% (n = 83)	2.22% (n = 2)	5.56% (n = 5)

).

In writing, as to the answers on the origin of the burnout for the option of burnout originating from “the body/mind not being ability normative (what many label as impairment),” the answers were 62.92% (n = 56) responded with Yes, 20.22% (n = 18) responded with No, and 16.85% (n = 15) responded with Can’t Say. In contrast, when asked whether burnout stems from the social environment, social context, sociocultural context, or milieu, 92.22% (n = 83) answered with Yes, 2.22% (n = 2) answered with No, and 5.56% (n = 5) selected Don’t Know/Can’t Say.

As students were allowed to click on both options, the yes answers suggest that the majority of students felt the burnout was caused by both options. However, the numbers were still much higher for the social versus the body/mind option, suggesting that the social was seen as the main one.

3.2. Qualitative Answers to Research Questions 3 and 4

We first show the social factors within the learning environment that were seen to lead to the burnout of disabled students and then the social factors outside the learning environment that were seen to lead to the burnout of disabled students.

As to the social factors at the place of learning, the following factors were mentioned.

Table 3. Disability studies students list of social factors at the university leading to the burnout of disabled students (answered by 76 students).

Theme	Theme Quotes (n=)	Sub-Theme	Sub-Theme Quotes (n=)	Quote (n = 155)
Attitudinal Barriers	64	Discrimination and Stigma	34	experiencing constant bullying or discrimination (n = 1); the feeling of pity or objectification from others (n = 1); bias (n = 7); discrimination (n = 10); stigma (n = 9); prejudice (n = 3); stereotype (n = 2); others doubting abilities of disabled people (n = 1)
		Inferior Treatment and Marginalization	10	treated significantly differently (n = 1); their ideas are often challenged (n = 1); continuous injustice (n = 1); subject to marginalization and oppression (n = 1); shunned as they don’t fit (n = 1); seen as inferior (n = 1); not making them feel equal from the group (n = 1); considered less than by peers (n = 1); seen as an outcast because most people cannot relate to them (n = 1); seeing them as others (n = 1)
		Self-Advocacy Fatigue	1	constantly facing/fighting societal and/or physical barriers just to get your school work completed (n = 1)
		Social Exclusion and Isolation	19	isolation (n = 1); social isolation (n = 3); societal isolation (n = 1); severely alone (n = 1); lack of social company (n = 1); exclusion (n = 1); excluded (n = 5); not welcomed (n = 3); feel like they don’t belong (n = 1); Not feeling included (n = 1); constant efforts to ensure that they belong (n = 1)
Concealment and Camouflaging	8	Forced to Mask or Fit In	8	trying not to ask for help (n = 1); having to mask symptoms/stims (n = 1); attempt to prove themselves and operate ‘regularly’ with their impairment (n = 1); certain expectations or objectification of them which force people with disabilities to be a certain way (n = 1); constantly being forced to try and keep up with society’s ideas of normalcy (n = 1); environments that are not made or structured with disabled people in mind (n = 1); mainly revolve around ‘normal’ people, which marginalizes those who do not fit in the category (n = 1); Living in a society that is structured only to suit those that are able bodied can be extremely draining (n = 1)
Emotional Impacts	12	Fear and Worry	5	fear of judgement (n = 1); fear of severe judgement (n = 1); fear of mistreatment (n = 1); stress related to worrying what others will think (n = 1); worrying about accessibility of classrooms and learning spaces (n = 1)
		Negative Self-Perception	7	the feeling of falling behind (n = 1); feeling like they are not good enough (n = 1); disabled person might feel like they are a burden or not as independent as others (n = 1); they may be focused on other people and what they think of them (n = 1); validation from others (n = 1); a danger of burning out from their personal beliefs on their impairment (n = 1); it’s what others think which truly influences their mindset and actions (n = 1)
Environmental Accessibility	19	Lack of accessibility (undefined)	7	lack of accessibility (n = 5); Not enough accessibility is available so they can feel that they are not free (n = 1); not enough accessibility (n = 1);
		Physical Barriers	10	physical environment (n = 3); physical inaccessibility (n = 1); broken elevators and door buttons (n = 1); lack of accessibility in design and architecture (n = 1); environments that are not made or structured with disabled people in mind (n = 1); inaccessible areas such as no elevators (n = 1); no automatic doors (n = 1); no ramps (n = 1)
		Technological Barriers	2	inaccessibility to materials (n = 1); inaccessible work tool or technology (n = 1)
Extra Labor	11	Advocacy Burden	9	additional demand from society because they do not fit the societal norms (n = 1); may need to work harder to be taken seriously (n = 1); advocating for oneself more than one should have to (n = 1); extra effort to be able to use the environment (n = 1); working to overcome and or right these preconceived biases (n = 1); pushing many to do things which they may have otherwise not done (n = 1); to take more measures to prove themselves to others (n = 1); having to overwork to compensate for the disconnect between abled and disabled peoples (n = 1); having to deal with people all the time who may treat them differently because of their disability (n = 1)
		Constantly Educating Others	2	getting tired having to explain themselves to society and society not taking the time to understand disabled people (n = 1); social settings people always compare themselves to others we criticize the state of normalcy we are in the spectrum which can cause a burnout (n = 1)
Institutional Barriers	23	Accommodation Problems	9	poor or no accommodations (n = 1); lack of accommodation (n = 2); not enough accommodation (n = 1); inadequate accommodations (n = 1); inability to access accommodations (n = 1); schools still do not have proper accommodations (n = 1); don’t get appropriate assistance or accommodations (n = 1); having to request for accommodations (n = 1)
		Excluded from Decision-Making	1	not any or many disabled people are involved in decision making processes (n = 1)
		Support Service Barriers	13	lack of support (n = 6); inaccessibility to services and proper support (n = 1); may not have the support required (n = 1); insufficient support systems (n = 1); are not willing to provide extra support (n = 1); supportive resources being influenced negatively (n = 1); environment is not supportive (n = 1); inaccessible service (n = 1)
Pressure and Performance	11	Academic and Internal Pressure	6	academic pressure (n = 1); challenges can create overwhelming pressure (n = 1); pressure applied to disabled students in comparison to non-disabled students (n = 1); feeling pressured to over-perform (n = 1); pressures to do something correctly (n = 1); internal and external pressure from the social environment (n = 1)
		Social Pressure	5	peer pressure (n = 1); pressure of being surrounded by peers who do not share their unique struggles (n = 1); social pressures that surround them and their disability (n = 2); feeling different from others may cause this pressure of ‘fitting in’ (n = 1)
Other	7	-	-	more prone to feeling overwhelmed from being hyper aware (n = 1); or even from overthinking (n = 1); overstimulated by the noises and the people around me (n = 1); not letting yourself have any down time (n = 1); excess amounts of sympathy and unnecessary aid. People with disabilities are congratulated for doing a simple task or job (n = 1); might have to plan ahead (n = 1); Financial stability (n = 1);

reflects the themes, the sub-themes, and the quote parts reflecting a given theme/sub-theme covering the social factors within the learning environment identified as having the potential to lead to the burnout of disabled students.

The theme “attitudinal barriers” was mentioned 64 times, with the sub-themes “discrimination and stigma” being mentioned 34 times, “social exclusion and isolation” 19 times, “inferior treatment and marginalization” 10 times, and “self-advocacy fatigue” 1 time.

The theme of “concealment & camouflaging” was mentioned 8 times, with the sub-theme “Forced to Mask or Fit In” being mentioned 8 times.

The theme of “emotional impacts” was mentioned 12 times, with the sub-themes “negative self-perception” being mentioned 7 times and “fear and worry” 5 times.

The theme of “environmental accessibility” was mentioned 19 times, with the sub-themes “physical barriers” being mentioned 10 times, “lack of accessibility (undefined)” 7 times, and “technological barriers” 2 times.

The theme of “extra labor” was mentioned 11 times, with the sub-themes “advocacy burden” being mentioned 9 times and “constantly educating others” 2 times.

The theme of “institutional barriers” was mentioned 23 times, with the sub-themes “accommodation problems” being mentioned 9 times and “excluded from decision-making” 1 time.

The theme “support service barriers” was mentioned 13 times, with the sub-themes “pressure & performance” being mentioned 11 times, “academic & internal pressure” 6 times, and “social pressure” 5 times.

As to the social factors outside of the place of learning in the daily lived social reality of the disabled student, the following factors were mentioned.

Table 4. Disability studies students list of social factors outside the university leading to the burnout of disabled students (answered by 67 students).

Theme	Theme Quotes (n=)	Sub-Theme	Sub-Theme Quotes (n=)	Quote (n = 141)
Attitudinal Barriers	44	Discrimination and Misjudgment	34	Discrimination (n = 10); Stigma (n = 9); stereotype (n = 2); segregation (n = 2); prejudice (n = 1); Being judged in public by strangers (n = 1); Attitudes are often different towards people with disabilities (n = 1); conceived notions people have about disabled people (n = 1); social environment that see’s them as different or abnormal (n = 1); suffering from able-bodied assumptions about the life of a person with a disability (n = 1); disabled people cannot be successful under a system which prioritizes competition (n = 1); efficiency and productivity (n = 1); constantly being seen as less than just for having a disability (n = 1); unable to fully exercise their rights (n = 1); the barriers put up by society (n = 1)
		Marginalization and Objectification	6	Objectification (n = 1); unwanted pity or sympathy from strangers (n = 1); or are praised for simply existing (n = 1); constantly in environments that oppress and marginalize them (n = 1); injustice (n = 1); keeping up with social norms and other barriers that oppress disabled people (n = 1)
		Societal Assumptions and Misunderstanding	4	societies assumptions (n = 1); consistent misunderstanding and lack of education from other people (n = 1); standards set by society (n = 1); Consistently feeling alienated by exclusive legislature (n = 1)
Emotional and Mental Health	21	Internalized Ableism and Anxiety	5	more time needed to accomplish daily tasks; which amounts to feeling ‘behind’ in many aspects of life (n = 1); individuals seem to look down on those with disabilities and rather not associate with them which causes anxiety (n = 1); how society is made for the individual tends to affect their identity (n = 1); Individuals that are excluded form society tend to struggle with their lives because it influences the individual negatively as there are seen indifferent in society due to how they are seen by others (n = 1); Feeling behind in comparison to other people in life, and studies (n = 1)
		Judgment and Social Fear	3	Fear of judgment (n = 2); fear of socializing (n = 1)
		Mental Load	2	If someone is constantly thinking about how their needs are not being met or how they should navigate situations to better fit their needs (n = 1); it takes so much more effort to go about anything (n = 1)
		Social Disconnection	10	social isolation (n = 2); isolation (n = 1); Poor social contact (n = 1); constant need to adapt to societal expectations can create feelings of isolation (n = 1); difficulty of relating to individuals around them must give them a sense of isolation (n = 1); may be isolated from others and cause them to feel disconnected from the world (n = 1); social withdrawal (n = 1); disconnect with close peers and society (n = 1); withdrawal from people we spend time with if these people are mentally challenging (n = 1)
		Self Care	1	how much time you put for yourself and how many times you do something you enjoy (n = 1)
Environmental and Structural Accessibility	24	Access and Suitability Issues	7	difficulties with everyday tasks because of poor accommodations (n = 1); Without access to accommodations (n = 1); lack of accommodations (n = 1); experience burnout from going to places that are not accommodating of their disability (n = 1); requires certain accommodations (n = 1); accommodation (as a word) (n = 1); their home environment may be different from the work environment, which can affect their capability to focus on the tasks at hand (n = 1)
		Assistive Tech Gaps	2	inability to have access to adaptive technologies (n = 1); inaccessible to aid devices (n = 1)
		Environmental and Transit Barriers	13	inaccessible common areas (n = 1); poor accessibly in public places (n = 1); inaccessible environments (n = 1); Living in inaccessible communities (n = 1); inaccessible building (n = 1); not live within an accessible environment (n = 1); physical barriers (sidewalks being narrower for a wheelchair to fit) (n = 2); spaces (n = 1); taking the bus to and from work (n = 1); going to places that are not accommodating of their disability (n = 1); Taking the bus back home from work as a person using a wheelchair could become really tedious and stressful (n = 1); getting place on the daily (n = 1)
		General Inaccessibility	2	As a phrase, two times (n = 2)
Pressure and Performance Expectations	15	Explaining and Justifying	2	Advocating for themselves can eventually turn exhausting and draining (n = 1); Expectations of disabled people’s ability or the need to explain yourself (n = 1)
		Overexertion and Responsibility	3	spending too much time on others without taking the time to care for yourself (n = 1); feel like constantly having to look out for yourself on top of tackling your to do list (n = 1); will have to put more effort into using the environment than others (n = 1)
		Performance and Social Expectations	10	the pressure to advocate for their needs (n = 1); people with disabilities face constant judgments which they continuously have to overcome and constantly prove their abilities to others (n = 1); pressure a person with disability has to fit into society better (n = 1); pressure formed by society to conform to what are believed are norms (n = 1); Constantly being the root of society’s inspiration; and constantly hearing ‘if they can do it why can’t I?’ drains individuals (n = 1); the pressure to quickly adapt (n = 1); pressure put on by society (n = 1); one may feel the need to constantly try to prove that they are more than their disability (n = 1); as that is all that society may see them as (n = 1); constant need to prove oneself capable of completing everyday tasks (n = 1)
Resources and Equity	11	Financial Stress and Inaccessibility	11	have access to limited resources (n = 1); limited access and equity to resources (n = 1); financial problems (n = 1); financial stress (n = 1); additional financial burdens (n = 1); financial issues (n = 1); expenses of living an ‘accessible’ life in an ‘inaccessible’ society (n = 2); financial strain (n = 1); Lack of Means (n = 1); Inadequate or insufficient resources for the disabled individual in and out of the social environment (n = 1)
Service and Social Support	24	Excluded from Decision-Making	6	partial participation (n = 1); silenced voices (n = 1); not in control (n = 1); have less control (n = 1); lack of autonomy in their day to day life (n = 1); paternalism that people with disabilities face as a result of able-bodied society making decisions for disabled people (n = 1)
		Family and Social Environment	10	lack of family support (n = 1); limited social networks (n = 1); lack of support from friends or family (n = 1); Family (n = 1); the family environment (n = 1); relationship changes (n = 1); family or partner does not create a supportive environment (n = 1); Poor support networks (n = 1); Bullying (n = 1); feeling unsafe or uncomfortable in their environment (n = 1)
		Mental Health and Community Support Gaps	8	inability to have access to services providing mental health care (n = 1); support groups (n = 1); lack of access to healthcare and mental health services (n = 1); limited access to healthcare (n = 1); unable to access mental help like a psychiatrist or psychologist (n = 1); not live within a supportive environment (n = 1); Without access to accommodations; it can be demanding for their mental health (n = 1); community services (n = 1)

reflects the themes, the sub-themes, and the quote parts reflecting a given theme/sub-theme that were identified as social factors outside the learning environment to increase the danger of burnout of disabled students.

The theme “attitudinal barriers” was mentioned 44 times, with the sub-themes “discrimination and misjudgment” being mentioned 34 times, “marginalization and objectification” 6 times, and “societal assumptions and misunderstanding 4 times.

The theme “emotional and mental health” was mentioned 21 times, with the sub-themes “social disconnection” being mentioned 10 times, “internalized “ableism and anxiety” 5 times, “judgment and social fear” 3 times, “mental load” 2 times, and self care 1 time.

The theme “environmental and structural accessibility” was mentioned 24 times, with the sub-themes “environmental and transit barriers” being mentioned 13 times, “access and suitability issues” 7 times, “assistive tech gaps” 2 times, and “general inaccessibility” 2 times.

The theme “pressure and performance expectations” was mentioned 15 times, with the sub-themes “performance and social expectations” being mentioned 10 times, “overexertion and responsibility” 3 times, and “explaining and justifying” 2 times.

The theme of “resources and equity” was mentioned 11 times, with the sub-theme “financial stress and inaccessibility” being mentioned 11 times.

The theme “service and social support” was mentioned 24 times, with the sub-themes “family and social environment” being mentioned 10 times, “excluded from decision-making” 6 times, and “mental health and community support gaps” 8 times.

4. Discussion

All the problems identified in the three studies we found in our pre-search that reported on the social factors causing the burnout of disabled students [62,65,66] were present in the answers of our participants. However, our participants identified many other social factors. The answers of our participants paint a picture of systemic problems disabled students face within and outside of the learning environment. Many of these burdens could be classified as discrimination admin [114]. The answers allow for the conclusion that the danger of burnout of disabled students is for the most part about the danger of disability burnout:

“After struggling with employment bias, poverty, blocked access to the community and its resources, unaccommodating and selective health services, lack of accessible and affordable housing, penalizing welfare policies, and lack of accessible transportation, some may experience what is known in the disability community as “disability burn-out.” This term refers to emotional despair engendered by thwarted opportunities and blocked goals. It is aggravated and intensified by years of exposure to disability prejudice and devaluation” [105] (p. 180).

Disability burnout, as used in the above quote, is really about disablism burnout, as in burnout due to systemic discrimination based on one’s body–mind abilities [54], or in other words due to “the systemic discrimination based on arbitrary ability judgments, and/or ability judgments based on or rooted in ability privilege and/or irrelevant ability norms” [115] (p. 31).

Our findings suggest that there is a need to de-disablize (removal or undoing of disablism) [81], for anti-disablism [116,117,118] (resistance to disablism), for disability justice, which adds intersectionality of disabled people with other identities to the mix [91,92,115,119] and for ability justice/ability judgment justice, “a world, that eliminated irrelevant and/or arbitrary body/mind ability expectations, decreased ability privileges and disablism based on these expectations, and enabled the use of ability expectations and ableism to decrease ability judgment-based oppression, inequity, disablism and privilege” [81].

4.1. The Social Factor of Accessibility

Our participants noted as one social factor that disabled students must worry “about the accessibility of classrooms and learning spaces”. This factor could be seen to be part of the class delivery in [65], as could be the many other physical and technical accessibility problems identified by our participants.

The main category of social factors within and outside the learning environment of disabled students identified by participants was attitudinal factors. This fits with two of the three pre-studies. The one that covered neurodivergent student teachers and flagged “attitude of others” as a problem [66] and stated, “school placements and interpretation of professional standards may be made more sympathetic to the needs of neurodivergent students. We advocate for change to increase the chances of a more representative teaching profession by reducing stigma for neurodivergent educators and allowing more neurodivergent adults to access the profession. Increased representation would lead to better understanding of neurodivergence, impacting positively on educators and learners [66] (p. 1)”. And the second one stated, “The fact that autistic characteristics predicted burnout may indicate that those with autistic traits may invest energy into masking these or experience some stigma associated with their traits, linking to depleted mental resources and more burnout” [62] (p. 1664).

This sentiment that attitudinal factors are the main danger for burnout of disabled students fits with the existing literature not specific to burnout that often describes not being accepted for who one is as a problem that disabled people face in general [120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128], as workers [129,130,131,132,133], and as students [4,8,134,135,136,137,138]. Many disabled people do not disclose their ‘disability’, whether as workers [133,139,140,141] or students [142,143,144,145,146,147,148].

It is proposed that studies look at adaptation burnout, which is “a potential outcome of marginalized groups having constantly to adapt to the non-marginalized groups” [149] (p. 191). Our participants mentioned masking, which is one form of adaptation to a norm, and is noted in the literature to lead to burnout (see the use of the term “autistic burnout”, for example, “a debilitating condition that severely impacts functioning, is linked to suicidal ideation and is driven by the stress of masking and living in an unaccommodating neurotypical world” [150] (p. 2356)). Many other social factors our participants mentioned could be seen to lead to adaptation burnout.

Our findings support the Accessibility Canada Act’s recognition of attitudinal barriers as a core pillar of inaccessibility [151] and highlight the need for more explicit academic attention to attitudinal accessibility [152], especially in the burnout of disabled people in the literature.

4.2. Social Factors Outside the Learning Environment

Our participants recorded many social factors outside the learning environment that they saw as leading to the burnout of disabled students. That fits with one of the three studies that stated, “For autistic students, the only predictor of academic burnout was personal burnout” [62] (p. 1), arguing that this might make sense because “if someone is generally exhausted, they also feel exhausted with academic life, and vice versa” [62] (p. 10). The term life administration [103] was coined to highlight the numerous external problems people face who do not fit a given norm. Our participants clearly held the view that life admin issues [103], such as discrimination admin [103], increase the risk of burnout among disabled students in their “work” as learners. Indeed, the literature on burnout outside the context of disabled students notes that burnout is influenced by quality of life beyond work [153]. External factors, such as family support [154], have been shown to affect students’ academic performance [155] and influence their choice of subjects [156]. If we were to use the answers of our participants to assess the “Life Balance Inventory”, one could conclude that disabled students face problems in all the items of the relationship subscale measures, for example, meeting new people and doing things with friends, and the identity subscale and the challenge subscale [157,158]. The answers of our participants also fit another study where participants indicated that disabled people have more problems in most of the 111 indicators of four of the wellbeing composite measures (“The Social Determinants of Health (SDH) [159,160,161,162,163,164,165], The Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIWB) [166,167], the OECD Better Life Index [168], and the Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) matrix [169,170,171] than non-disabled people and even more problems if they belong to other marginalized groups (some of the 111 indicators flagged were empowerment, leisure, livelihood, political participation, social mobilization, social protection, social relationship, sport, democratic engagement, economic security, work life balance, advocacy, social status, and transportation) [172].

Our findings suggest that it is not enough to only address the reality within the learning environment and that interventions within the learning environment must also consider the lived reality outside the learning environment. Our results support a 2023 study covering EDI efforts in which it was asked to “engage more with the external factors of the lived experience of EDI covered groups so they can build the external problems into EDI strategies” and “to broaden the focus of work/life away from work/family to work/general life reality” [149] (p. 191), something also asked for by others [104].

4.3. The Issue of Intersectionality and Diversity of Disabled Students’ Backgrounds

We did not ask our participants to give their views separated by disability characteristics or any other background characteristic of the disabled student, as this would make answering the questions overly complex for the participants. However, we suggest that every problem identified will manifest differently depending on factors such as geographical background, type of disability, identity-based understandings of disability, and duration of lived experience with their disability.

The intersectional dimensions of identity [96,115], such as when the identity of being a disabled student intersects with the disabled student belonging to another marginalized identity, such as being a Black disabled student or a disabled woman, are another factor that will influence the disabled student’s lived reality and, with that, which problems are experienced and to what extent. Given the many aspects that shape the lived reality of disabled students, it is particularly important to examine their realities outside the learning environment and within the learning environment beyond how we deliver courses.

Our findings also indicate that supporting disabled students within the learning environment must go beyond the way we deliver courses. It requires recognizing the full range of roles disabled students occupy, including as knowledge producers, researchers, and contributors to both academic and community contexts. This aligns with broader expectations that students act as change agents [173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180] and active citizens [174,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190]. We also argue that the concept of “accommodation” itself must be rethought. Our findings support the calls from the fields of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) [191] and inclusive pedagogy [192] to reconceptualize accommodation and to question accommodation disablism [193] prevalent in the lived reality of disabled people. As it stands, the term often implies that only disabled people require adjustments, reinforcing a medicalized model of disability. To access accommodations, students typically must self-identify as having a medical condition (which some disabled people identify with but other disabled people do not), an act that can lead to feelings of otherness, social exclusion, and ultimately, masking or camouflaging, which contributes to burnout [150].

4.4. The Issue of Allyship

We noted before that we selected disability studies students as participants because they see themselves as allies of disabled people [14] and want to make a positive difference in the lives of disabled people [106,107]. There are many expectations of allies of disabled people [194], all of which could be boiled down to the expectation that allies are anti-disablist [194]. One expectation is that allies educate themselves [194]. Given that this was a junior-level course, it is notable that participants’ views on the burnout of disabled students closely align with the (albeit limited) existing literature. This suggests that many of these students may have entered university already informed about the experiences of disabled people, possibly due to personal connections, such as friends or family members with disabilities. It appears that participants were able to extrapolate from the broader challenges faced by disabled individuals, particularly youth, to understand the barriers experienced by disabled students in academic settings. Allies ought to do research [194]. The views of our participants highlight numerous venues for research they and other allies could do as undergraduate and graduate researchers on the burnout of disabled students, especially on the nexus of within and outside the learner’s environment has not been explored so far.

However, the answers of our participants, which highlight deep systemic problems faced by disabled students within and outside the learning environment, suggest that the task of being an ally of disabled students is an enormous one and contains the danger of ally burnout [194], as in activist burnout, as allies ought to be activists [195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202]. Activist burnout has been defined as “when long-term activism-related stressors deteriorate activists’ physical or emotional health or sense of connectedness to their movements, impacting their effectiveness or abilities to remain engaged” and “Making matters worse, burnout begets burnout, as movement work is taken up by fewer people, who begin to burn out, engage less effectively, and take out their hopelessness on fellow activists” [203] (p. 364). As such, efforts have to be taken to support disability studies students and other allies of disabled students and disabled people in general to decrease or eliminate the danger of ally burnout.

5. Limitation

This study has several limitations. As we used an online survey instrument, students were unable to seek clarification during the survey. However, students could have asked for clarifications about the questions in class before they started the survey, which did not happen. We also chose not to collect demographic data because the survey was embedded in a standard graded assignment designed to foster engagement with course topics. Including demographic questions might have disrupted students’ sense of anonymity, given that this was one class of less than 100 students and that these students see each other in all year 1 classes. This could have been detrimental to the assignment’s purpose, which was to obtain a view on the topic on the level of the class, not individuals. It could have discouraged students from answering the assignment, as they might not want their views to be known to their fellow students. We also would not have received ethics approval due to the danger of identification due to the small group.

Despite the absence of demographics, the data still provides valuable insight into how this group of critical disability studies students understood the issue. Their perspectives reflect diverse lived realities, including prior exposure to disabled people in their families or social circles, and the differing ways disabled individuals view their own lives. To capture all of these influences would have required extensive background questions, which were not feasible in this context. As this is, to our knowledge, the first study that asked specifically about the social factors that might increase the danger of burnout of disabled students, our questions can be used to ask many other groups of different backgrounds about the topic.

Social desirability is a possibility all the time. Disability studies courses attract students with a particular interest in critical disability perspectives and as such, also assume a certain positionality of the instructor. However, as outlined, students had no access to the class material on burnout before the survey. So, students would not have known what the instructor expected in relation to social factors of burnout, as this content had not yet been covered.

6. Conclusions

This study contributes to the limited literature on identifying social factors that could cause the burnout of disabled students by foregrounding the perspectives of a group often positioned as their allies—students in a critical disability studies program. The findings clearly indicate that these students perceive disabled peers to be at significant risk of burnout, largely due to social and structural barriers rather than intrinsic deviation from an ability norm labeled as an impairment. Attitudinal inaccessibility, including discrimination, stigma, isolation, and a lack of genuine inclusion, was the most frequently cited factor both within and beyond the university setting. Importantly, the parallel presence of these barriers inside and outside the learning environment underscores the need to address the broader lived realities, the disablism, of disabled students, not just their academic contexts. These insights have implications for how universities should approach accessibility, allyship, and student support. They also highlight a potential role for disability studies students and others as informed allies who can advocate for more inclusive environments. At the same time, the danger of ally burnout [194], due to emotional labor and other social factors [194], must be recognized, particularly when acting without institutional support. Future research should examine the relationship between structural and attitudinal barriers, educational institutions, and burnout risk among disabled students.

The findings of this study, including the fact that we found little research on the topic to start with, suggest several avenues for future research. For instance, similar studies could be conducted with students in both disability studies and non-disability studies programs, within Canada and internationally. Importantly, future research should prioritize the voices of disabled students themselves. A more comprehensive body of literature must reflect the diversity within the communities of disabled people, including geographical variation, types of disabilities, identity-based understandings of disability, duration of lived experience, and intersectional dimensions of identity.

Our study results also have policy implications, such as how EDIA and other policy action frameworks are approached, and educational implications, such as that they can inform curriculum development in areas such as citizenship education, intersectional pedagogy, science and society education, and other educational endeavors that aim to foster social literacy by preparing students to act as change agents and active citizens. Today’s students are tomorrow’s researchers, policymakers, and community allies of disabled people; it is crucial that they are exposed to the issues raised by our participants.

Finally, our results could be used to inform students and others being trained in coding AI algorithms, as many of the problems our participants highlighted are not limited to disabled students but are problems disabled people face throughout their lives. Studies could be performed to test whether AI output related to disabled people in general and disabled students in particular makes attitudinal issues worse for disabled people in general and disabled students in particular due to the information bias the AI might produce and people are exposed to.