We present a systematic review of 29 empirical studies on disability and fieldwork in natural science, postsecondary educational settings. Undergraduate students with disabilities are underrepresented in STEM, and disciplines requiring major field components are some of the least diverse, at least in part because fieldwork has been traditionally viewed as hard, physical, and masculine. Disability Studies in Education (DSE) frames the research questions, inclusion criteria and results. Studies were coded by disability model used, barriers and strategies to accessibility in field science, and meaningful involvement of persons with disabilities in research on fieldwork education. Although most studies asserted a view of disability as a social, cultural, and political phenomenon, some deficit language and interpretations persisted. Few studies included author positionality, and even fewer disclosed author disability status. The main instructional recommendations emphasize flexibility and adaptability, presuming student competence and making small‐scale changes consistently over time. Multiple studies emphasize the need for proactive planning, including robust contingency plans, and explaining how these plans can negate the need for complex modification. Twenty‐four additional non‐empirical studies are identified as resources for discipline‐specific guides and checklists for inclusive fieldwork. We conclude that important steps are being taken to investigate and critique barriers to fieldwork participation for students with disabilities, but there is still much work to be done in addressing systemic barriers beyond the control of individual instructors.

Background: Engineering education and other discipline‐based education researchers may motivate their work with claims that STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) norms and culture are unique, thus requiring focused study. As research on disabled students gains momentum in engineering education, it is important to understand differences that limit generalizability of prior work in other disciplines to STEM.Purpose: What do studies document as differences between STEM and non‐STEM settings that impact disabled undergraduates, and to what extent are these studies using asset‐based perspectives of disability?Scope/Method: This systematic review identified US studies that compared STEM to non‐STEM disciplines in regards to disabled undergraduate students. The qualifying studies, published during 1979–2023, comprise 22 journal articles and 15 doctoral or master's theses. Most studies used quantitative methods (n = 28).Results: Of the 37 qualifying studies, 20 instructor studies provided moderate evidence that STEM instructors are less willing or less knowledgeable about how to support disabled students through accommodations or course design. We highlight a small number of student studies identifying assets of disabled students, although most took a deficit view by comparing disabled student experiences to an able‐bodied norm. Few studies emphasized the structural characteristics of STEM such as culture and educational practices that contribute to socially constructing disability by acting as barriers that disable students.Conclusions: More work is needed to examine instructor actions beyond their intentions and attitudes toward disabled students. Critical and asset‐based perspectives are needed in future study designs that center disability to uncover systemic barriers and identify assets disabled students bring to STEM.

In the US and Europe, institutions, foundations and governments invest significant financial resources in doctoral fellowships. Unlike other graduate funding mechanisms, fellowships are typically not tied to specific projects or job responsibilities and thus may afford more agency to students. We examined how fellowship funding contributes to or undermines agency of doctoral student recipients. We interviewed 23 US engineering doctoral students primarily funded on a fellowship for at least one semester. We qualitatively analyzed the interviews, using inductive and deductive methods of coding. Participants described increased flexibility with their projects, advisor, and personal life; additional access to physical resources, people and networks, and research experiences; and feelings of internal validation and external recognition from fellowship awards. Contexts of advising, timing of fellowship, source of fellowship, financial circumstances, and fellowship structure influenced their experiences. Agentic perspectives and actions included choice of advisor and research projects, switching advisors if necessary, completing internships and visiting other labs, and enjoying a higher standard of living. Advisor support is a necessity for students funded on fellowships. Multi-year fellowships from external sources, in comparison to internal sources, more often supported agency. We make recommendations for institutions to structure and administer fellowships to better support students.

Background: Use of theory is a quality marker in engineering education research. However, it can be challenging to select an appropriate theoretical framework and explicate how that framework was used. Purpose: Using undergraduate STEM disability research as an example, this systematic review develops a framework of theory use in engineering education research. We sought to understand what theoretical frameworks have been used, how frameworks are implemented, and what opportunities exist to strengthen use of frameworks. Method: We identified 101 articles, conference papers, and dissertations reporting on undergraduate STEM disability studies conducted in the United States since 2005. We coded their theoretical frameworks on two dimensions: (1) thematically, by framework genre, and (2) whether the framework primarily informed the overall framing of the study, research methods, or an educational intervention. Results: We identified 12 genres of theoretical frameworks, the largest of which were universal design; motivation, identity and advocacy; and critical theories. Most studies used these frameworks to frame the entire study ( N = 64), while fewer primarily informed methods ( N = 15) or an educational intervention ( N = 22). While a few theoretical frameworks were used exclusively for methods (e.g., grounded theory) or interventions (e.g., instructional frameworks), most framework categories spanned multiple usage types. Conclusion: We call for more explicit labeling of framework use in future work to support common understanding of how frameworks are selected, synthesized, and applied in engineering education research studies. We also encourage researchers to use anti‐deficit frameworks as research about STEM undergraduates with disabilities evolves.

Professional science societies stand at the intersection of science, education, and research, providing crucial professional development and career opportunities for scientists. Their structures and policies can either promote more equitable ideologies, practices and outcomes or deepen existing disparities within science. In recent years, many societies have implemented diversity statements and initiatives, but few studies have examined their actual impact on membership composition and the experiences of their minoritized members. Critical education scholars emphasize the importance of examining these experiences through frameworks that center their voices, acknowledge institutional racism, and address the power imbalances that exclude marginalized groups. This study uses the matrix of domination framework (Collins, 1990) and its four domains of power (structural, disciplinary, interpersonal, and cultural/hegemonic) to investigate the perceptions and experiences of inclusion/exclusion of the members of the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER). We identified factors that contribute to and detract from the society's equity goals by analyzing members' experiences at different systemic levels. By framing members' experiences through the lens of dimensions of power, we reveal relationships and structures that may have otherwise remained invisible, offering new insights into strategies that can better aid professional societies toward their equity goals.

Graduate education is important for career and social mobility, but it is inaccessible to many students with disabilities. Prior research describes structural and societal barriers—including but not limited to ableism and discrimination—and their impact on graduate students with disabilities. This review discusses challenges unique to graduate education such as faculty-student power differentials, unwillingness to disclose disability for fear of appearing incapable, classification of graduate students as both students and employees, and limited applicability of formal accommodations beyond organized coursework. Informed by our lived experience as disabled graduate students and faculty, we conduct a qualitative evidence synthesis of 28 articles, theses, book chapters and reports into actionable steps graduate faculty can take to mentor and support graduate students with disabilities. Using a mentoring-across-difference framework, we endorse reciprocal mentoring relationships that support trust, mutual learning, and sustained connection between mentors and mentees. Recommendations range from developing trust, questioning ableist disciplinary and graduate program norms, advocating for students and helping students develop advocacy skills, and providing scaffolding for disabled graduate students’ learning and professional development.