To what extent does higher education promote labour market participation for disabled people in school-to-work transitions and early career trajectories? This article argues that the effect of higher education on labour market outcomes for disabled people must be studied in correlation to gender. Intersectional theory warns against the generalisability of the female and male experiences, and predicts that disability may influence sexism, and that gender may influence disableism. Norwegian full-population register data on recipients of disability benefits are used to explore the effect of higher education on three labour market outcomes for men and women with disabilities. Contrary to common intersectionality expectations, the results show that men experience more extreme employment disadvantages related to their disabilities than women. Higher education has a stronger effect on participation for disabled women than for disabled men. However, gender differences in participation are smaller for people with disabilities than for the general population.
AakvikA (2003) Estimating the employment effects of education for disabled workers in Norway. Empirical Economics28(3): 515–533.
2.
AchterbergPYerkesM (2009) One welfare state emerging? Convergence versus divergence in 16 western countries. Journal of Comparative Social Welfare25(3): 189–201.
3.
AchterbergTJWindHde BoerA, et al. (2009) Factors that promote or hinder young disabled people in work participation: a systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation19(2): 129–141.
4.
AckerJ (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society4(2): 139–158.
5.
AltmanBM (2001) Disability definitions, models, classification, schemes, and applications. In: AlbrechtGLSeelmanKDBuryM (eds) Handbook of Disability Studies. London: SAGE, 97–122.
6.
AltmanBM (2014) Definitions, concepts, and measures of disability. Annals of Epidemiology24(1): 2–7.
7.
BauerG (2014) Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Social Science Medicine110: 10–17.
8.
BeaudryJ-S (2016) Beyond (models of) disability?The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy41(2): 210–228.
9.
BerthoudR (2008) Disability employment penalties in Britain. Work, Employment and Society22(1): 129–148.
10.
BliksværTHanssenJI (2006) Funksjonshemming, utdanning og arbeidsmarkedsdeltakelse [Disability, education and labour marked participation]. Respekt2(6): 52–55.
11.
BomanTKjellbergADanermarkB, et al. (2014) Can people with disabilities gain from education? Similarities and differences between occupational attainment among persons with and without disabilities. Work49(2): 193–204.
12.
BorchorstAFreidenvallLKantolaJ, et al. (2012) Institutionalizing intersectionality in the Nordic countries: anti-discrimination and equality in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. In: KrizsanASkjeieHSquiresJ (eds) Institutionalizing Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 59–88.
13.
BorgE (2008) Funksjonshemning og arbeidsmarkedet [Disability and labour market]. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning11(2): 83–95.
14.
BowlegLBauerG (2016) Invited reflection: quantifying intersectionality. Psychology of Women Quarterly40(3): 337–341.
BurkerEJSedwayJCaroneS (2004) Psychological and educational factors: better predictors of work status than FEV1 in adults with cystic fibrosis. Pediatric Pulmonology38(5): 413–418.
17.
ColeER (2009) Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist64(3): 170–180.
18.
ColellaAStoneD (2012) Workplace discrimination toward persons with disabilities: a call for some new research directions. In: DipboyeRLColellaA (eds) Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 227–254.
19.
CovarrubiasA (2011) Quantitative intersectionality: a critical race analysis of the Chicana/o educational pipeline. Journal of Latinos and Education10(2): 86–105.
20.
CrenshawK (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum1989(1): 139–167.
21.
DagMKullbergC (2010) Can they work it out and do they get any satisfaction? Young Swedish physically disabled men’s and women’s work involvement and job satisfaction. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research12(4): 287–303.
22.
DeeganMJ (1985) Multiple minority groups: a case study of physically disabled women. In: DeeganMJBrooksNA (eds) Women and Disability: The Double Handicap. New Brunswick, NJ; Oxford: Transaction Books, 37–55.
23.
DubrowJK (2008) How can we account for intersectionality in quantitative analysis of survey data? Empirical illustration for Central and Eastern Europe. ASK17: 85–100.
24.
DyckIJongbloedL (2000) Women with multiple sclerosis and employment issues: a focus on social and institutional environments. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy67(5): 337–346.
25.
EgelandCDrangeI (2014) Frivillig deltid – kun et spørsmål om tid? [Voluntary part-time – just a question of time?]. AFI-report, Work Research Institute, Oslo.
26.
EnglandK (2003) Disabilities, gender and employment: social exclusion, employment equity and Canadian banking. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien47(4): 429–450.
27.
FalkumESolbergAG (2015) Arbeidsgivers inkluderingsevne. Betingelser for inkludering av funksjonshemmede i arbeidslivet [Employer’s inclusion ability. Conditions for including disabled in working life]. AFI-report, Work Research Institute, Oslo.
28.
FawcettG (2000) Bringing Down the Barriers: The Labour Market and Women with Disabilities in Ontario. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development.
29.
FranzénEMKassmanA (2005) Longer-term labour-market consequences of economic inactivity during young adulthood: a Swedish national cohort study. Journal of Youth Studies8(4): 403–424.
30.
GoodleyD (2011) Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
31.
GrueLPFinnvoldJE (2014) Hjelp eller barrierer? En undersøkelse av betingelser for høyere utdanning for ungdom med nedsatt funksjonsevne [Help or barriers? An examination of conditions for higher education for youth with impairments]. NOVA-report, NOVA, Oslo.
32.
HancockA-M (2007) When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition: examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics5(1): 63–79.
33.
HanischH (2011) Recognizing disability. In: BickenbachJEFelderFSchmitzB (eds) Disability and the Good Human Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–138.
34.
HansenILSAndreassenTAMeagerN (2011) Employment of disabled people in Norway and the United Kingdom. Comparing two welfare regimes and why this is difficult. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research13(2): 119–133.
35.
JonesMKLatreillePLSloanePJ (2006) Disability, gender, and the British labour market. Oxford Economic Papers58(3): 407–449.
36.
KamCDFranzeseRJ (2007) Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: Univeristy of Michigan Press.
37.
KiddMPSloanePJFerkoI (2000) Disability and the labour market: an analysis of British males. Journal of Health Economics19(6): 961–981.
38.
KittelsaaAKristensenGKWikSE (2016) Kjønn i forskning om funksjonshemming. En litteraturstudie [Gender in Disability Research. A Literature Study]. Trondheim: NTNU Samfunnsforskning.
39.
KjeldstadRLyngstadJ (2011) Funksjonshemming og kjønnslikestilling – Arbeidsdeling hjemme i par med nedsatt funksjonsevne [Disability and gender equality: division of household work in disabled couples]. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning52(4): 491–523.
40.
LegardS (2012) Overgangen mellom utdanning og arbeid for unge med nedsatt funksjonsevne [The transition between education and work for young people with disability]. AFI-report, Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet, Oslo.
41.
LoprestPMaagE (2007) The relationship between early disability onset and education and employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation26(1): 49–62.
42.
McBrideAHebsonGHolgateJ (2015) Intersectionality: are we taking enough notice in the field of work and employment relations?Work, Employment and Society29(2): 331–341.
43.
McCallL (2005) The complexity of intersectionality. Signs30(3): 1771–1800.
Mik-MeyerN (2015) Gender and disability: feminizing male employees with visible impairments in Danish work organizations. Gender, Work & Organization22(6): 579–595.
46.
MoldenTHTøssebroJ (2012) Disability measurements: impact on research results. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research14(4): 340–357.
47.
MoodC (2010) Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review26(1): 67–82.
48.
MoodleyJGrahamL (2015) The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies. Agenda29(2): 24–33.
49.
MósesdóttirLEllingsæterAL (2017) Ideational struggles over women’s part-time work in Norway: destabilizing the gender contract. Economic and Industrial Democracy. Epub ahead of print 6 January 2017. DOI://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X16681483.
50.
NättiJ (1995) Part-time work in the Nordic countries: a trap for women?Labour9(2): 343–357.
51.
O’HaraB (2004) Twice penalized: employment discrimination against women with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies15(1): 27–34.
52.
OliverM (2013) The social model of disability: thirty years on. Disability & Society28(7): 1024–1026.
53.
RandleKHardyK (2017) Macho, mobile and resilient? How workers with impairments are doubly disabled in project-based film and television work. Work, Employment and Society31(3): 447–464.
54.
RenLRPaetzoldRLColellaA (2008) A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Human Resource Management Review18(3): 191–203.
55.
RosenfeldRABirkelundGE (1995) Women’s part-time work: a cross-national comparison. European Sociological Review11(2): 111–134.
56.
Statistics Norway (2006) Nye definisjoner av utdanningsnivåer [New definitions of education levels], Oslo, Kongsvinger: SSB.
57.
Statistics Norway (2007) Standard industrial classification [Standard for næringsgruppering]. Oslo; Kongsvinger: SSB.
58.
Statistics Norway (2011) Standard classification of occupations [Standard for yrkesklassifisering]. Oslo; Kongsvinger: SSB.
59.
StoneDLColellaA (1996) A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. The Academy of Management Review21(2): 352–401.
60.
TøssebroJWikSE (2015) Funksjonshemmedes tilknytning til arbeidslivet: En kunnskapsoversikt [Disabled people’s connection to working life: a literature overview]. Oslo: Norwegian Research Council.
61.
VedelerJSMossigeS (2010) Pathways into the labour market for Norwegians with mobility disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research12(4): 257–271.
62.
VeenstraG (2011) Race, gender, class, and sexual orientation: intersecting axes of inequality and self-rated health in Canada. International Journal for Equity in Health10(1): 3.
63.
Yuval-DavisN (2006) Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies13(3): 193–209.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
