A diverse scientific workforce leads to increased creativity and productivity by introducing a wider range of perspectives, experiences, and skill sets (Lindsay et al., 2018; Tilghman et al., 2021). Diversity is conventionally considered in terms of race, ethnicity, country of origin, linguistic background, socioeconomic background, gender, and/or sexual orientation. Despite its high prevalence in society, disability is often overlooked as a form of diversity (Santuzzi and Waltz, 2016; Dennissen et al., 2018; Gould et al., 2021). While the importance of cultural and ethnic diversity is widely acknowledged, it is important to consider the contribution that individuals with disabilities can make in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) (Bellman et al., 2018). As with other diverse groups, people with disabilities are underrepresented in STEMM (National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021).

Individuals with disabilities offer a unique perspective drawn from their experiences of living with a disability that can guide novel and innovative scientific progress or improve medical care for people with that particular disability. They frequently have extensive experience navigating healthcare settings as patients, utilizing creativity to overcome accessibility challenges, managing limited time and resources, and advocating for themselves and others with disabilities. This experience translates to valuable attributes such as better communication skills, persistence, empathy, planning, creativity, and adaptability (Hewlett, 2017; Accenture, 2018; Kristjansdottir et al., 2018; Lindsay et al., 2018; DeFelice, 2019; Kulkarni, 2020). Individuals with disabilities often know how to use assistive technology to increase their productivity (Hatton, 2014; Kulkarni, 2020), and some types of disability or neurodiversity have common attributes that might be helpful in and of themselves. For example, employees who are Deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) may be less distracted by background noise and conversations (Hatton, 2014). Businesses who actively recruit and support individuals with disabilities often see higher revenue and better employee retention than businesses that do not (Accenture, 2018; Lindsay et al., 2018).

As defined by the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2007), “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments in which interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” Scientists with disabilities face several hurdles to equity and inclusion (Brown, 2016; Brown et al., 2018; Brown and Leigh, 2018; Inckle, 2018; De Picker, 2020). In the context of STEMM education, disability equity refers to justice in the way that people with disabilities are treated, such that they have the same likelihood for educational and career success as individuals who are not disabled. Disability equity also extends to interpersonal relationships, where individuals with disabilities should be treated with the same respect as individuals who are not disabled. Inclusion of individuals with disabilities means giving them physical, social, and financial access to the same opportunities as individuals without disabilities, often through the use of accommodations. Physical access refers to whether a person with a disability can enter, move around in, and function in a physical space and whether they are able to interact with physical materials (e.g., posters, lab equipment). For D/HH individuals, physical access can be facilitated by using microphones, providing services like captioning, cued language transliteration, or sign language interpretation, and by providing quiet environments for conversations. Social access refers to being able to attend and participate in the informal social interactions (e.g., conversations, dinners, social hours) that can lead to research collaborations, employment, and leadership opportunities. Social access is often a challenge for D/HH individuals who may be unable to hear in noisy conference halls or restaurants, or who may be exhausted from trying to hear at a conference and thus unable to attend evening events. Finally, financial considerations can limit both physical and social access. Many individuals with disabilities expend significant financial resources on health care and assistive technology. For these reasons, they sometimes cannot afford conference registration fees, travel costs, or educational expenses. Many interactions that are critical to career success occur at professional organizations’ academic or scientific conferences. Given the key role professional organizations play in nurturing scientists and facilitating career growth for trainees, we believe these organizations can foster diversity by supporting efforts for recruiting and supporting individuals of diverse backgrounds, including those with disabilities. Indeed, there has been recent interest in how scientific conferences can be more inclusive (Oswald and Ostojic, 2020; Tzovara et al., 2021). We propose five pillars (see Figure 1) that organizations can use to better support their diverse members: 1) fostering peer-mentor groups, 2) proactively providing equal access, 3) easing financial burdens, 4) recruiting for leadership positions, and 5) establishing a culture of inclusion and equity. By adopting these pillars, professional organizations can lead by example, familiarizing their members with equitable treatment and inclusion of individuals with disabilities and those from other diverse backgrounds.

We are a group of more than 110 deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/HH) engineers, scientists, and clinicians, most of whom are active in clinical practice and/or auditory research (Adler et al., 2017). Our network was initially formed in 1992 at a professional society meeting for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology (ARO) and has continued to grow based on shared experiences at those meetings and in other STEMM environments. Typically, our group makes up 1% or less of attendees at professional conference meetings. Diversity networks such as ours have the potential to promote equity and inclusion if they directly address systemic inequalities in organizations, in addition to advancing career development and building community (Dennissen et al., 2018). We have worked with the organizational leadership of various professional societies to implement successful, practical strategies for improving accommodations, raising awareness, and promoting academic, research, and career development opportunities for diverse trainees. We discuss how one organization, ARO, has fostered a more inclusive and equitable environment for researchers with disabilities and provide five guidelines for other scientific or professional organizations to consider.

Our peer mentorship network for D/HH individuals endorses a biopsychosocial view of hearing loss (defined below) that incorporates medical and social models of disability. While these disability models are not mutually exclusive, each model has distinct approaches to disability.

Medical models of disability address the physical differences associated with specific diagnoses and focus on preventing, curing, remediating, or accommodating the physical underpinnings of a given disability (Pelka, 2012). For D/HH individuals, this might involve genetic counseling about hereditary hearing loss, treatments to preserve or restore inner ear function, auditory rehabilitation through the use of hearing devices (e.g., hearing aids, cochlear implants), and promoting the individual use of assistive technology such as remote microphone technology and smartphone apps to provide automatic speech recognition and transcription. As scientists, engineers, and clinicians who study hearing and live with hearing loss, much of our academic labor falls into this category.

Social models of disability assert that some of the issues experienced by individuals with disabilities arise from the presence of societal or environmental barriers (Samaha, 2007). For deafness and hearing loss, addressing these barriers might include installing amplification systems that are compatible with hearing aids and cochlear implants, providing real-time captioning for all lectures and meetings by default, and providing interpreting and transliteration services (e.g., sign language interpreters, cued language transliterators, oral transliterators). Proponents of social models of disability often feel the language used to write and talk about disability should use “person-first language” (e.g., researchers with disabilities). This approach is meant to emphasize the personhood of individuals with disabilities and to avoid defining individuals and groups based only on their disability (Dunn and Andrews, 2015).

One type of social model, the diversity model, acknowledges that society and the environment can be inaccessible and exclusionary and also argue that people with disabilities form an important cultural group that contribute to society through their identity as disabled people (Andrews, 2020). This type of model recognizes that disabled people are culturally valuable because of their experiences of living with disability, and not because they are able to “overcome”—or succeed in spite of—their disability. For example, extensive advocacy by the D/HH community during the 1960s through 1980s led to ubiquitous captioning of movies and television broadcast shows. Today, the majority of viewers who now use captioning for their own benefit do not have a hearing loss (Ofcom, 2006).

The diversity model perspective has long been held by the Deaf community (commonly designated by the capital “D” to indicate that it is specific cultural group differentiated from the broader D/HH community) who view hearing loss as a key part of their personal identity and often use sign language as a primary form of communication (Padden and Humphries, 1988). More broadly, disability culture includes individuals with any and all disabilities and encompasses values, arts, and political stances in addition to experiences of shared discrimination and prejudice (see Andrews, 2020; Mackelprang and Salsgiver, 2016; or Brown, 2002, for reviews). For example, the American Deaf community has developed poetry and storytelling techniques that leverage linguistic features unique to American Sign Language (Bahan, 2006; Sutton-Spence and de Quadros, 2014).

Diversity models of disability contributed to the rise of the field of critical disability studies, which focuses on how different diverse identities can intersect with disabilities and draws parallels between the disability rights movements and other civil rights movements (Andrews et al., 2019; Ginsberg and Rapp, 2017). This field has led to our current understanding of ableism, defined as the conscious or unconscious prejudice and discrimination towards disabled people (Andrews, 2020). Ableism takes many forms and can be harmful regardless of whether it stems from ignorance, negative attitudes such as viewing disabled people as burdensome or vulnerable, or from attitudes which on the surface seem more positive, such as viewing disabled people as inspirational or heroic (Andrews, 2020). For example, media profiles of successful disabled individuals in academia seldom acknowledge that the individual’s disability can be an asset and not just something to “overcome” (e.g., Terry, 2019). Often, these narratives either ignore the challenges associated with disability entirely or assert that a scientist with a disability is noteworthy because they succeeded in spite of their disability. Ideally, these profiles would mention the challenges of being disabled and also include information on how their disability helped them to be more successful or a better scientist. Further, inspirational videos and articles of deaf children’s reactions when their cochlear implant is first activated may objectify them and fail to provide adequate background regarding realistic benefits of the device and remaining challenges post-implantation.

Proponents of diversity models and the field of disability studies often advocate for the use “identity-first language” (e.g., D/HH scientists) which enables disabled individuals to express belonging and pride as members of a disabled community and to define what it means to be disabled instead of letting it be defined by negative stereotypes (Dunn and Andrews, 2015). The American Psychological Association (2020) states that both person-first and identity-first language are appropriate, and that authors should consider the preferences of the people who are being written about. In this article, we have elected to use person-first language when referring to disabilities in general (e.g., individuals with disabilities) and identity-first language when discussing the disabled community to which we belong (e.g., D/HH individuals).

Biopsychosocial models integrate aspects of individual, social, and diversity models of disability. Engel (1977) originally proposed a biopsychosocial model as a way of addressing an overreliance on a medical model in psychiatry, which ignored the “social, psychological, and behavioral dimensions of illness.” Since that time, the model has been expanded and updated to apply to many areas of health, illness, and disability (Wade and Halligan, 2017). It was used as the basis for the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), a framework for measuring individual- and population-level health and disability in 2001 (World Health Organization, 2001; Kostanjsek, 2010). At the time, the ICF was seen as progressive, because it included not only the biological underpinnings that give rise to disability (medical model), but also considered that the environment, society, and relationships can exacerbate or ameliorate disability (social model) and indicated that personal factors can also have a major impact on disability (diversity model). While personal factors remain underspecified in the ICF model, these factors could potentially include income, age, educational qualifications, and racial, gender, or LGBTQIA+ identity (WHO, 2011; Shaw et al., 2012; Nakkeeran and Nakkeeran, 2018).

The biopsychosocial model has the potential to be transformative because it acknowledges that there are limitations to our ability to address hearing loss and other disabilities through medicine. By combining medical, societal (i.e., environmental), and diversity considerations we can maximize opportunities for the success of disabled individuals. For example, combining cochlear implants (medical) with accommodations such as closed captioning and training of colleagues/teachers on how to facilitate communication (social) as well as introducing the disabled individual to other disabled peers (diversity) has a higher likelihood of success than any of these strategies in isolation.

Hearing loss ranges from mild to profound. For example, an individual with mild hearing loss may experience difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments, whereas an individual with profound hearing loss may have little to no functional hearing. Communication modalities found within the hearing loss community can include audio-visual, where speechreading is combined with residual hearing, and visual-only, such as sign language and Cued Speech. The diversity of hearing loss etiologies and communication modes means the hearing loss community is heterogeneous and accessibility strategies for a particular individual (i.e., providing assistive listening devices) may not work for another individual.

Differences in the wording of questions across surveys makes it difficult to estimate the true prevalence of hearing loss (Mitchell, 2006). Nevertheless, rough estimates suggest that approximately 15% of American adults report some trouble with hearing (Blackwell et al., 2012). Global data indicate that ∼6-18% of the world’s population live with some form of hearing loss (Olusanya et al., 2019). For comparison, these numbers are similar to the numbers for diabetes, which affects 13% of American adults (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020) and 9.3% of adults across the globe (International Diabetes Federation, 2019). Given its high prevalence, it is not surprising that the hearing loss community is inherently diverse. Hearing loss can occur in any individual regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, or other cultural background. This diversity can contribute to large disparities in terms of rehabilitative outcomes achieved by people with hearing loss. For instance, a child with hearing loss born into an affluent family may have better hearing outcomes due to better parental follow-up from newborn hearing screenings, early intervention such as speech therapy, and earlier access to hearing aids, cochlear implants, or assistive listening devices. A child born into a family of low socioeconomic status might not have access to the same resources (Holte et al., 2012; Ching et al., 2013).

There are strong parallels in the history and consequences of discrimination between individuals with hearing loss and other marginalized communities. Strategies developed to recruit and support members of the D/HH community in STEMM fields can serve as a template for efforts to recruit and support members of other historically disadvantaged or otherwise marginalized communities. The approach presented below is targeted towards D/HH individuals but can easily be adapted for the specific needs of other marginalized groups.

The Association for Research in Otolaryngology (ARO) is a scientific organization focused on hearing and balance research that was founded in 1973. In 1992, D/HH attendees at the ARO Midwinter Meeting formed an informal networking group dedicated to increasing the representation of D/HH individuals in hearing research. This group has grown to more than 110 members globally and has encouraged ARO to develop five pillars that support diversity and inclusion among their members (see Figure 1). These pillars are: 1) fostering peer-mentor groups, 2) proactively providing equal access, 3) easing financial burdens, 4) recruiting for leadership positions, and 5) establishing a culture of inclusion and equity. ARO is a model organization that has successfully implemented practices targeting all five pillars. Below, we provide examples for each that can be used as a framework for other STEMM professional and scientific organizations.

This article has described a highly successful model for promoting representation of D/HH individuals in hearing research. We have found that D/HH individuals have used their early career in hearing research, combined with mentorship from our group, as a stepping stone to other fields of study and medical specialties. This same support needs to be extended to inclusion of other disabilities, such as visual impairment, in their chosen field, and to the inclusion of D/HH individuals in STEMM fields beyond hearing research. Funding opportunities from the National Science Foundation (NSF 21-049, NSF 21-110) and the National Institutes of Health (R13, U13, R25) gives professional societies financial support to implement the five pillars, such as with conference costs (e.g., captioning) and mentoring activities.

The fact that the strong D/HH network arose in the auditory field is not surprising. After all, auditory researchers and clinicians understand communication challenges and many of us have been fortunate to have been mentored by normal hearing individuals who advocated for access within ARO. However, many other scientific societies have unfortunately not yet followed the lead of ARO. To fully realize equal participation of D/HH individuals in STEMM will require administrative champions in the leadership of other societies given the cost of assistive technology. The hearing research field is relatively small, and STEMM will benefit when D/HH individuals have full access to career opportunities in the field of their choice-not limited by the accessibility of the field or others’ perceptions of what would be a “natural” choice based on their disability. Thus, the scientific community needs to come to this realization and do more for D/HH individuals across disciplines.

Professional organizations, including those that are not STEMM-focused, can include individuals with disabilities by inviting them to provide input on policies such as disability accommodations at scientific meetings. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to reshape accommodations for those with disability when in-person conferences were shifted to virtual. For a virtual poster, a presentation is often recorded, without background noise, and can easily be captioned. Digital platforms can facilitate asynchronous text-based research interactions. This mode can be easier for many D/HH individuals and other individuals with disabilities than in-person sessions and conversations in noisy conference halls. Hybrid conferences adopting universal design approaches combined with remote manual correction and formatting of automatic captioning might proactively reduce isolation while still affording these benefits.

Another opportunity for professional organizations to foster diversity is to create mentoring programs for diverse middle school and high school students, including those with disabilities. Many students from historically excluded groups have the potential to succeed in STEMM fields but do not always receive the guidance and support needed to pursue those paths. Having a mentor who has faced similar challenges can bring confidence in learning and self-advocating and provide encouragement and inspiration. Existing models such as AG Bell’s Leadership Opportunities for Teens (LOFT), Oregon Health Science University’s On Track OHSU! and others (Pluth et al., 2015) provide a framework for adopting similar programs for STEMM outreach.

Our peer-mentorship network of D/HH engineers, scientists, and clinicians is foundational to our success in STEMM. Trainees have successfully transitioned to being leaders in academia, healthcare, and industry, often receiving significant research funding. Through this network we discuss the challenges we face and strategies to overcome difficulties. We also form a cohesive group to advocate for changes in our fields and at professional conferences to address the underrepresentation of individuals with hearing loss in STEMM. We believe that the adoption of this peer-mentorship network model by other underrepresented minority groups, and collaboration among and between peer-mentorship networks and professional societies, will drive changes that will promote diversity and equity in STEMM and other fields.