9 1��Ѱ���

Who we are

In 2024, we attended the Leeds Disability Studies Conference and noticed that there were very few other professional services staff there. It is unusual for Professional Services staff voices to be heard at these conferences and, although we are not doing the research, we play a key role in facilitating it and influencing research culture. 
 

What do we mean by Professional Services? 

Professional Services (or PS) is a term used in the UK to refer to staff members within higher education whose roles are typically non-academic. 

This covers a wide range of areas from research support, IT, marketing, admissions, finance and HR etc. 

Here we will refer to such staff members as Professional Services or PS.

A Note on Technical Staff 

When we presented an earlier version of this paper at the Nordic Network on Disability Research (NNDR) conference in Helsinki in May 2025, a valuable point was raised: technicians and technical staff are also integral to research culture and may experience similar feelings of being unacknowledged for their contributions to research. While our lived experience leads us to focus on Professional Services staff in this paper, we acknowledge the critical role played by all non-academic colleagues in supporting and facilitating university research.

Rhea Halsey

As Programme Manager of Disability Matters, my work falls into the area of research support or research management. For this, I wear many hats. I am a strategic planner, a multi-communicator, a budget manager, an activities coordinator and a bureaucracy navigator. In short, I make sure research projects happen. 

My work is intrinsically linked to the “doing” of disability studies. I am able to experiment with innovative approaches to creating an inclusive research culture. Our commitment to placing disability at the start and centre of all that we do has greatly influenced our activity within Disability Matters. 

One way I have shaped research culture would be my approach to the recruitment of our two researchers at the 9 1��Ѱ��� of Sheffield. Right from the start we wanted disability to be the driving force. Some of our key strategies included the following:  

Inclusive Recruitment Practices 

1. Planning & Advertising 

From the outset, we decided that our approach would be universal, that is all the changes were applied to the recruitment process as standard. 

We removed “Post-Doctoral” from the inherited role title and replaced it with “Research Associate”. This was to reflect that a PhD was not one of our essential criteria for the role. 

We shortened the existing job description template and reduced the standard person specification criteria by half. We added a more direct statement on work pattern and conditions. 

We created a new webpage specifically for the job openings which included FAQs and introductory videos. This was a useful resource to direct candidates to. 

We shared a clear timeline of communications with candidates up front, and this included when they should expect to receive our response and when interviews would take place. We ensured there was at least one week between each phase. This helped to set expectations and allow time for candidates to prepare. 

2. Application Process 

Our pre-interview task could be delivered in multiple formats, including video or audio. 

We decided on five interview questions, and we provided candidates with them in advance, along with general interview guidance. Interviews were no longer than 45 minutes and all were held via online video conferencing. 

All candidates received a direct response regardless of outcome. We provided feedback at each stage of the process via video call slots of 15 minutes. 

3. Onboarding & Beyond 

We spoke to our new researchers about requirements and adjustments upfront and early on. 

I provided a 15-page induction document which included signposting to relevant internal and external services. 

We set up weekly team meetings and drafted key programme documents together, and this helped us to bond as a team. 

4. What was the result? 

Establishing these inclusive practices was with the aim of supporting disabled researchers to apply and for us to support them throughout the process. 

We can measure some of our impact by examining applicants who declared a disability via the UK Disability Confident scheme. This is a UK government scheme in which job applicants can choose to declare a disability and then receive associated recruitment support. 

We received 138 applications for the two posts and 53% of those who applied declared a disability via the scheme. Of those invited to the final stage, 86% had declared via the scheme. 

Overall, 82% of our programme team identify as disabled. It was important for us to adopt inclusive practices that would attract and then help develop the careers of disabled people working within higher education. This is especially vital in the UK context, in which the disability employment gap sits just under 30% (Disability Rights UK; House of Commons). 

Applicant testimony also highlights the positive impact these actions had. We were told that the job description and resources were informative, personable and inviting. Our communication was clear and prompt. Candidates found it reassuring to have interview questions in advance and the interview itself felt friendly and welcoming. Additional key words from the feedback include refreshing, positive and pleasant. 

5. Reflection

This success wasn’t mine alone. It required a coming together of team members, both academic and PS, including our central HR. While our approach did not necessarily trigger direct change to the wider university recruitment process, HR did launch a shorter job description template shortly after our experience here. 

This example illustrates how PS staff can directly and positively shape inclusive research culture. Why is this a conversation worth having? Research support can sit in the background, often overlooked or characterised as “just admin”. This becomes further nuanced when considering the intersection of PS staff who are also disabled. If, as stated by Brown & Leigh (2020, p. 5), disabled academics can be described as unseen and under-represented[4], does this mean that disabled PS staff are the “unseen of the unseen”? 

Our work, even the administrative kind, is deeply programmatic and linked to the theoretical. This recruitment process reflects our commitment to learning about inclusivity and access, and shows how we can translate these concepts into practice. If we really are overlooked in this discussion, then I hope our paper today casts some light on us and our place within disability research. 

References 

Brown, N and Leigh, J (2020) Ableism in Academia: Theorising experience of disabilities and chronic illnesses in higher education. London: UCL Press. 

Citizens Advice, Disability Confident . Available at: (Accessed: 30 April 2025).

Disability Rights UK, Employment. Available at: (Accessed: 30 April 2025). 

Powell, A (2024), Disabled people in employment . Available at: (Accessed: 30 April 2025).

Liz Dew 

I work as the Project Coordinator for a two-year Wellcome Trust Funded project about Anti-Ableist Research Culture. The aim of the project is to promote anti-ableism in the university by working collaboratively with four disabled people’s organisations and looking at specific areas where we hope to leverage change: recruitment and employment, inclusive events and inclusive research methods training, funding smaller sub-projects across the university and cripping the research concordat.

After the first month in my job, I was struck by how this work feels like so much more than project management. In order to “do” Project Management properly, I have to be immersed in the ideas of the project. This whole project is meta in that, as a disabled project coordinator working on a project about disability, every action I take and every moment I live in the project is a possible subject of the project. I am acutely aware of my environment, the ableist and neuronormative expectations of an open plan workspace, for example, filled with desks and chairs. Another example: The first meeting of the project team was around a big table, in a room with lovely views, but I would have loved to get rid of the table, to move freely around the room, to sit on a sofa and take in the view whilst listening to my new colleagues speak, rather than being forced into eye contact and close proximity.

I am the only non-academic on a project team of 12. This can be othering because much of the work of project management is about making things happen seamlessly and is often largely invisible. The word “admin” hides a multitude of activity, effort and relational work in order to create and facilitate the conditions for collaboration, community and creating as much impact as possible.

I can be seen by my team as representing the university and its policies and procedures, and to some extent ensuring compliance does fall to me. But I also push back against the ableism inherent in many of these policies. I build relationships with the policy owners, I try to find sympathetic colleagues who have power to leverage change. I reach out to colleagues like Lucy and Rhea and collectively we push for change. We can be seen as purely transactional, as “the admin” - but actually we are noticing (and experiencing) ableism, challenging it and using our energy to lobby for changes to policy and procedure so that next time our disabled colleagues hopefully have one fewer barrier to encounter. Although the accommodations loop may, in fact, be impossible to escape. (Tendency to a redemptive narrative arc?)

Working closely with a Principal Investigator who is genuinely interested in my reflections and provocations has led to some significant learning for the project. The fieldwork was focused on the experiences of disabled academics until I tentatively asked, “What about disabled Professional Services staff? Where are we?”. The fieldwork plans were amended to include disabled professional services staff as well as academics, and I’m proud of this, as disabled professional services staff are nowhere to be found in the literature about disabled university workers. 

Access support has been difficult to establish, both for me and for my disabled colleagues, because of a mixture of university and government bureaucracy. Some of the fall out from this is that colleagues experience roadblocks to doing their research and project work, leading to feelings of frustration, to illness, and to burnout.  PS working culture is to “be positive”, to strive to make continuous improvements. I find myself trying to be a “good” disabled person, to hide my struggles, to not to talk about my growing understanding that anti-ableism and the neoliberal university are at odds with each other and cannot be reconciled.

Personally, the highlight of the project so far is that I have received support from my fellow disabled and non-disabled colleagues to try to bridge these access support gaps, and have been able to offer support to others. Together, we have created mutual support and care, with no feeling of either charity or of being beholden to anyone - which Mia Mingus (2011) describes as access intimacy.

An important part of my role is advocating, problem solving and pushing back against systems and bureaucracy to remind the university that disabled staff exist and that we should be included. To establish that disability is not an inconvenience to be benevolently accommodated, but a necessary and generative part of research culture.

Reference 

Mingus, M. (2011). Access Intimacy: The Missing Link. Leaving Evidence.  

Lucy Dunning 

I’m an Operations Manager for a collection of Social Research Institutes at 9 1��Ѱ���, working alongside Liz and Rhea. I work across a range of projects, including Disability Matters and WAARC. My role mainly involves providing support once a grant has been awarded, getting involved with a range of things from health and safety to finance management and budgeting.

I want to build on what Rhea and Liz have already said about the role of PS staff in creating an inclusive research culture. Too often, PS contributions are labelled as 'just administration,' but the reality is far more complex. To illustrate this, I’d like to draw upon my experience working in an academic institution and how I have collaborated with other PS staff and academics to change institutional policy.

Due to their size and complexity, universities often have policies and processes which can inadvertently create barriers. Whether it's bureaucratic processes, funding challenges or conflicting policies, these barriers can often make it difficult for staff to access the support needed.

That's where PS staff come in! We are fundamental in bridging the gap between policy and practice. We ensure that policies and processes are actively implemented in ways that are meaningful and effective. Whether it's liaising with HR, IT, finance or external agencies, PS staff are the ones making accessibility a reality. It’s easy to be oblivious to, or even dismiss this crucial work as mere paperwork, but in reality, it involves problem-solving, strategic thinking, and a deep understanding of institutional inner workings.

As PS staff, we don’t work in isolation. We must collaborate closely with others to ensure that the university functions smoothly. Our work enables researchers to focus on their projects, lecturers to deliver high-quality education, and students to navigate their academic journeys successfully. Through this collaborative approach, PS staff also help foster a culture in which diversity is recognised as an asset and a catalyst for positive change, shaping a more inclusive and innovative university environment.

The institution in which I work recently issued revised financial policies, as part of a broader effort to strengthen financial governance and compliance. I identified a significant issue in the updated regulations relating to reimbursement of expenses. It appeared to be restricted solely to ‘Formally Registered Carers’, thereby excluding informal care and its many forms. The institutional policy quotes carers, but I’m aware that ‘Personal Assistant’ is also widely used. As we know, most carers are family members or close friends, those who are not officially registered but who provide vital physical, emotional or logistical support. By only reimbursing registered carers, the institution would be ignoring the reality of care and be discriminating against the majority of caregivers and receivers. This narrow interpretation fails to acknowledge the lived realities of caring relationships; and overlooked the vital role that informal care plays in enabling colleagues with caring needs to participate fully in university life and work related commitments. The policy wording as it stood would be inadvertently sending a message that disabled colleagues with unregistered carers have needs that are somehow less legitimate.The policy as it stood would discourage people from attending conferences, doing fieldwork or being involved in external meetings. It seemed to penalise those who cannot easily obtain formal ‘registered’ carers. Some people may prefer care from someone known and trusted. Some regions may lack access to formal care services, especially at short notice or in specific cultural contexts. Restricting reimbursement to registered carers was not just administratively narrow - it was socially unjust, exclusionary and misaligned with the lived experiences of many.

Recognising both the equity implications and the practical impact of this exclusion, I took a leading role in challenging the policy. I engaged directly with key institutional stakeholders, including senior leadership and finance policy leads, to advocate for a more inclusive approach. Through a process of consultation, evidence-building and constructive dialogue, I successfully lobbied for the recognition of non-registered carers as eligible for reimbursement when supporting university business. This policy change not only reflects a more accurate understanding of the diversity of caring arrangements, but also reinforces a commitment to accessibility, inclusion and social responsibility. This more inclusive policy aims to remove one of the many barriers and aims to give everyone the ability to participate.

Without the crucial support of PS staff, many of the institutional functions we take for granted would grind to a halt. The reality is that academia is not just about research and teaching—it’s about the infrastructure that makes those activities possible, and PS staff are at the heart of that infrastructure.

The term administration is commonly thought of or said without much consideration, but it fails to capture the complexity, impact, and necessity of PS roles. Often seen as ‘transactional’, PS staff are so much more - we reflect and develop policy and procedure, we are problem solvers, enablers, and essential partners in academic success. Today, I encourage you all to recognise the work happening beyond the desk—because without it, academia simply wouldn’t function!