Research Centre for Disability and Employment

A Better Match between Persons with Mobility Impairments and the

Labour Market

Project description, December 2017

Keywords: Mobility impairments, employment, job match, information asymmetry, employers,

employment service, ableism, aversive disableism, innovation camp.

Persons with mobility

impairments

EmployersEmployment

services

1

Vision and objectives

The vision of the Research Centre for Disability and Employment (Forskningscenter for Handicap og

Beskæftigelse, www.fhb.aau.dk) is to systematically describe, understand, and assist in improving the

labour market situation and the prospects of disabled persons. The research centre is a collaboration

between Centre for Labour Market Research at Aalborg University, VIVE – The Danish Centre for Applied

Social Research and VIA University college, but is open for collaboration with other Danish and

international researchers.

From 2018-2020, the research centre has funding from the Danish BEVICA foundation (www.bevica.dk) to

conduct a research project on “Better matches between persons with mobility impairments and the labour

market”. This project will collect new evidence on the supply side (persons with mobility impairments), the

demand side (the employers), and the intermediate institutions (the employment service) and identify

more effective measures and instruments to improve the labour market situation of persons with mobility

impairments.

This integrated approach is innovative and draws on state of the art labour market and disability research.

From labour market research, we build on the theory on “asymmetrical information” (Granovetter, 1974;

Hensvik & Skans, 2016; Larsen & Vesan, 2011; Peck & Kirkbride, 2001; Pinkston, 2009). From disability

studies, we draw upon theories on “ableism” (Campbell, 2009; Mik-Meyer, 2016a) and “aversive

disableism” (Deal, 2009; Dovidio et al. 2011; Dunne, 2015). These theoretical concepts will provide new

prisms to guide data collection and better understand the labour market situation of persons with mobility

impairments.

Problem, approach and research questions

Persons with disabilities are more likely to be inactive, unemployed, or in subsidised jobs than people

without disabilities. In recent decades, the labour market situation for persons with disabilities even seems

to have deteriorated (Jones, 2008; OECD, 2010).

In Denmark, self-reported estimates show that around 780,000 persons have a disability or a longer-term

health issue, which amounts to more than 20% of the adult population (Larsen & Høgelund, 2015). Within

this group, 305,000 persons (39%) report of mobility impairments defined as problems with arms, hands,

legs, feet, spine or neck. Recent research from VIVE1 shows that there is still a large gap between the

employment rates of persons without disabilities (79%) and persons with mobility impairments (56%), and

that there is an untapped labour supply among unemployed persons with mobility impairments and among

those employed on “special conditions” (Larsen & Larsen, 2017).

The multiple barriers to the equal access and inclusion of persons with disabilities are located on the supply

side, the demand side, and in the relationships between the two sides of the labour market. We, therefore,

propose to apply an integrated labour market approach to understand and improve the situation of

persons with mobility impairments.

On the supply side, research shows that the type and severity of impairment affects labour market

outcomes (Jones, 2008). Greater health challenges imply lower likelihood of employment (Larsen & Larsen,

2017). Moreover, a lower proportion of persons with disabilities have further education, which may partly

1 Formerly SFI - The Danish National Centre for Social Research.

2

explain their gap in employment rates (Larsen & Larsen, 2017). Barriers such as lack of motivation and self-

confidence may also affect persons with disabilities (Dansk Handicap Forbund, 2016). Deal (2007) argues

that all of the obstacles that persons with disabilities face in relation to employment tend to become

“restrictions within ourselves”.

On the demand side, research shows that some employers are apprehensive about recruiting persons with

disabilities, but also that there are important variations in the attitudes and behaviour among employers.

Experimental research indicates that persons with disabilities experience discrimination when applying for

a job (Ameri et al., 2016; Baert, 2017). Protective legislation may also discourage some employers from

hiring persons with disabilities, because they are afraid of being stuck with an unproductive employee

(Peck, 2001). Some employers may lack knowledge about public support schemes (financial, practical, and

other) that are potentially available when hiring persons with disabilities (DA, 2017; Dansk Handicap

Forbund, 2016). However, research also indicates that employers with experiences of recruiting persons

with disabilities have more positive attitudes than employers with no experiences of recruiting persons

with disabilities (Hernandez et al., 2000; Morgan & Alexander, 2005).

On the matching-side of the labour market, persons with disabilities are clearly more reliant on assistance

from public employment agencies when searching for a job than unemployed persons without disabilities

(Larsen & Larsen, 2017; see also DA, 2017). The public employment agencies (in Denmark, the municipal

jobcentres) play a crucial role as job mediators (Bredgaard et al., 2016; Amby, 2014). However, Danish

research indicates that public employment agencies and health authorities often lack the knowledge,

capacity, and capability to collaborate and efficiently provide a match between job seekers with disabilities

and employers (Amby, 2015a; Rambøll, 2014).

In order to understand and improve the labour market situation of persons with disabilities, specifically

persons with mobility impairments, we need to integrate the three approaches to labour market research

and understand the linkages between them (see table 1).

Table 1. An integrated labour market approach

Supply-side approach Matching approach Demand-side approach

The focus Persons with mobility impairments

The employment services

The companies

The problem Individual abilities and disabilities as barriers to the labour market

Information asymmetries and inadequate matching

The behaviour and attitudes of employers

The solution

Increase capacities of persons with mobility impairments

Improve information and matching of employment services

Persuade or enforce employers to hire and retain persons with mobility impairments

In essence, labour markets are market places for the exchange of labour. For instance, neo-classical

economic theory tends to describe the labour market as any other product market where buyers

(employers) and sellers (employees) exchange goods and services (wages for labour). However, in real-

world labour markets, there are numerous imperfections, barriers, and regulations that make labour

markets function and perform in ways not predicted by the theory (see Cahuc et al., 2014; Ibsen &

Stamhus, 2016).

3

The analytical starting point of this project is that labour markets are characterised by a state of

“asymmetrical information” (Granovetter, 1974, Hensvik & Skans 2016, Larsen & Vesan 2011, Peck &

Kirkbride 2001, Pinkston 2009) with particularly harmful effects for persons with disabilities. A jobseeker

with, for instance, mobility impairments often lacks information about the accessibility and the ability of

the workplace to accommodate his or her impairment. On the other hand, the employer lacks information

about the consequences of the jobseekers’ impairment for the vacant position. Lack of credible and

sufficient information may lead to indirect discrimination of persons with disabilities (Ameri et. al, 2015;

Baert, 2017; Thuesen 2012). One solution to this dilemma is the provision of transparent and reliable

information to both jobseekers and employers. The public employment service has typically assumed

responsibility for the provision of such information.

However, there is no administrative registration or records of disabilities in the Danish employment service.

Therefore, persons with disabilities tend to become an “invisible group”, and information gaps become a

barrier to matching jobseekers with disabilities with employers (Amby, 2015a; Larsen & Larsen, 2017). On

the other hand, the low levels of formal job protection and lack of special protection for persons with

disabilities on the Danish labour market may promote the integration of persons with disabilities, since

employers may be less reluctant to recruit persons that they can easily dismiss again (see Bredgaard et. al,

2015; Bredgaard & Madsen, 2015).

In addition to theories of “information asymmetries”, the concepts “ableism” and “aversive disableism” are

useful in understanding the hesitation, ambivalence, and lack of action on the part of public employment

agencies and employers. Ableism is a concept that refers to how disability is constructed through able-

bodied norms (Campbell, 2009; Mik-Meyer, 2016a). One consequence of ableism is that able-bodied norms

tend to exclude persons with disabilities from the workforce (Hall & Wilton, 2011; Schur et al., 2005),

although they are seldom openly acknowledged by actors such as public authorities, employers, or

potential colleagues. The concept of aversive disableism seeks to capture precisely the tacit nature of such

exclusion, implying that much prejudice faced by disabled people is not overt but is instead subtle in

nature, as argued by disability researcher Mark Deal (2007). Aversive disableism is inspired by the concept

“aversive racism” (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Similar to that concept, it points to feelings of “discomfort,

uneasiness, disgust and sometimes fear” that often result in the attitude-holder avoiding contact with the

attitude-recipient (Deal 2007: 96). Both concepts (i.e., ableism and aversive disableism) point to

mechanisms that lead to the exclusion of persons with disabilities from the labour market, and hence both

concepts are highly relevant to an analysis of the labour market situation of persons with mobility

impairments. Moreover, the concepts have not so far been used as an analytical prism in relation to an

integrated analysis of this labour market situation from the perspective of jobseekers with disabilities, the

employment agencies, and the employers.

The main research question of this project seeks to advance current research by exploring: Which factors

and mechanisms represent barriers to the labour market integration of persons with mobility

impairments and how can the situation be improved? To answer this research question we raise the

following sub-questions:

1) Persons with mobility impairments: What characterizes the labour market situation of persons with

mobility impairments and how do they themselves conceive of the labour market barriers and

opportunities they experience?

2) The employment services: Which factors inhibits or promotes public employment services to address

the needs of persons with mobility impairments and which policy instruments are effective in

increasing the employment rates of persons with mobility impairments?

4

3) The employers: Which factors prohibit or promote that employers recruit and retain persons with

mobility impairments and how can more employers become engaged in hiring persons with mobility

impairments?

This approach differs from current research in three important ways. First, we apply an integrated rather

than partial approach to understand the labour market for persons with mobility impairments, the role of

the employment services, and the employers, as well as the linkages between them. In doing this, the

project combines the strengths of political science, sociology, labour market studies and disability research.

Second, the project will focus specifically on persons with mobility impairments as a sub-group of

individuals with disabilities. Finally, we will combine applied research with innovative measures and

solutions and aspires to assist in improving the labour market situation of persons with mobility

impairments (see below).

Project design and work packages

The projects consists of four work packages, one for each of the three sides of the labour market (supply-

side, demand-side and matching-side) and one work packages to combine the insights and identify new and

legitimate solutions to improve the labour market situation of persons with mobility impairments

(innovations camps).

Figure 1. Project design and work packages

Figure 1 illustrates the project design, including the data collection methods of the work packages. The

project applies a design that combines quantitative and qualitative methods in order to validate the data

and obtain new knowledge of a complex phenomenon (cf. Brannen, 2005). Within each work package (WP

1-3), surveys are conduced prior to in-depth case studies, allowing quantitative key findings to be

qualitatively elaborated in the case studies. At the same time, the three surveys and parts of the case

studies are sequenced so that findings from one work package can be used to feed into design of the next

round of data collection.

• Survey 1Survey of

persons with mobility

impairments (employed,

unemployed, inactive)

•Casestudy 1Etnografic life

interviews

WP 1. Supply

• Survey 2Survey of

employers attitudes,

behaviour and experiences

• Casestudy 2Casestudies of 8

workplaces

WP 2: Demand

• Survey 3Survey of key informants in

jobcenter

• Casestudy 3Casestudies of the interplay between employment and

health rehabilitation

WP 3: Match

Products

- Innovative instruments for at better match

- Peer reviewed articles and book in danish

WP 4. Innovation

camp

WP 4. Innovation

camp

WP 4. Innovation

camp

WP 4. Innovation

camp

5

WP1. Supply - The labour market situation of persons with mobility impairments (project leaders:

Helle Holt and Frederik Thuesen)

The purpose of WP1 is to analyse the labour market situation of the heterogeneous group of persons with

mobility impairments by taking their point of view as the starting point. In order to do so, we will carry out a

longitudinal ethnographic study including qualitative interviews and distribute a survey among persons with

mobility impairments. These two studies will focus on how and why mobility impairments represent barriers

to labour market participation, experiences in relation to the municipal social services administration and

jobcentres, as well as experiences in relation to job seeking, employers, and colleagues. We will also compare

the characteristics and experiences of employed and non-employed citizens with mobility impairments in

order to explore potential differences between these groups.

The longitudinal ethnographic study uses interviews and returns to interviewees to measure and explore

changes which occur over time and the processes associated with these changes (see Holland et al. 2006;

Mcleod & Thompson 2012). We will follow 20 individuals with mobility impairments during their everyday

life and work life throughout the project period (3 years). These 20 individuals will consist of 10 individuals

in employment and 10 individuals without employment (primarily unemployed job-seeking individuals).

Comparing employed and unemployed job-seeking individuals with mobility impairment in a longitudinal

employment perspective will provide new and valuable knowledge on barriers and promising paths towards

employment. We will conduct three interviews with each individual over a 2-year period resulting in 60

interviews. The interviews will cover different themes inspired by theoretical approaches mentioned above,

especially the concept “aversive ableism”.2

The interviews from the longitudinal ethnographic study will feed into a nationwide survey targeting a

representative sample of individuals with mobility impairments. The central themes of the survey will be the

respondents’ everyday life, health, education, labour market trajectory, employment status, number of

working hours (if employed), type of contract, employment conditions, and seniority. The survey will also

explore their interaction and experiences of public institutions (social services, health, and employment

administration) and collaboration among these institutions (cf. Gensby & Thuesen 2010), as well as

experiences in the labour market (employers and colleagues). Moreover, we will seek to uncover the

respondents’ motivation for finding a job, experiences of discrimination, stigmatization and social isolation,

as well as embedding in information and help-providing social networks relevant for finding or retaining a

job (Carey et al., 2004; Potts, 2005; Thuesen 2016).

The sample will consist of 3800 respondents who have themselves indicated having a mobility impairment in

two previous surveys conducted by VIVE (the 2016 survey concerning disability and employment, see Larsen

& Larsen, 2017, and the panel SHIELD-surveys 2012/2016, see Damgaard et al., 2013). The sociological

method known as “latent class analysis” will be used to analyse the data. Latent class analysis is a powerful

analytical tool to distinguish different segments of a given population based on observable and unobservable

(latent) characteristics (Hagenaars & McCutcheon, 2002; Collins & Lanza, 2010). In relation to this study, this

2 The following themes will be included: The creation of a disabled person (Holmqvist, 2008; Mik-Meyer, 2016b), the psychological restrictions within the disabled person towards the labour market – the internal barriers (Deal, 2007; Dansk Handicap Forbund, 2015), isolation and the importance of social relations and networks in connection to the labour market (Thuesen, 2016), the experience of othering, aversive disableism and stigmatization (Deal, 2007; Mik-Meyer, 2016a), the meetings with employers, potential colleagues and the professionals in jobcentres and in the health sector – the external barriers (Holt & Mehlsen, 2017; Holt & Nilsson, 2013; Rambøll, 2014; Garsten & Jacobsen, 2013; Mik-Meyer, 2016a; 2016b).

6

method will help provide new knowledge on different segments making up the population of individuals with

mobility impairments based on socio-economic background, education, mental resources (self-

confidence/self-efficacy), experiences in relation the employment system, employers etc.

The knowledge gained from the combined qualitative and quantitative studies in WP1 will be valuable to

NGOs, public administration employees, employers, and decision-makers working in this field in order to

target empowerment and employment strategies towards this group of individuals. When investigating how

public institutions (e.g., jobcentres) and employers estimate the employability of persons with mobility

impairments and the requirements for enhancing such employability, building on detailed knowledge from a

“user” or “job-seeker” perspective will be very useful. Empirically, both the interviews and the survey from

WP1 will be used to guide the selection of jobcentres and employers in WP2 and WP3, respectively, for

further in-depth qualitative case studies.

7

WP2. Demand - The employers and persons with mobility impairments (project leader: Thomas

Bredgaard and Julia Salado-Rasmussen)

The purpose of WP2 is to analyse and better understand the decisions and attitudes of employers towards

persons with mobility impairments. Thus far, the decision-making structures, preferences, and attitudes of

employers towards disabled persons in general and persons with mobility impairments in particular have not

been well understood and seldom researched.

There are some exceptions (see also Hernandez et al., 2000; Peck & Kirkbride, 2001, Thuesen, 2012). The

Danish National Centre for Social Research (SFI) has conducted a number of surveys on corporate social

responsibility since 1998. The surveys indicate that the share of employees with a disability at the workplace

level is increasing (Jacobsen, Larsen & Jensen, 2015). According to the latest figures, 42% of the Danish

workplaces had employed at least one person with disabilities in 2012 compared to 11% in 1998.

Nevertheless, important challenges in labour market integration and retention of persons with disabilities

persists. In a survey of employer attitudes, Jakobsen, Larsen, and Jensen (2015) identify a number of barriers

to recruiting persons with reduced work capacity, including lack of the right qualifications and that persons

with disabilities are seen to require too much special attention or not fit into the workplace. Such attitudes

are likely to be a product of lack of information or prejudice and adherence to ableist norms (Campbell 2009).

Hence, Amby (2015a) finds that the majority of Danish companies are apprehensive about hiring unemployed

people with disabilities. Moreover, other surveys indicate that employers lack information about relevant

legislation on compensation and subsidies when recruiting persons with disabilities (Dansk Handicap

Forbund, 2016; DA, 2017). Even disabled persons seem to lack information about the various compensation

schemes and economic subsidies (Larsen & Larsen, 2017).

Building on this and the preliminary findings from WP1, we will collect new data on the attitudes,

preferences, decisions, and experiences of employers in recruiting and retaining persons with mobility

impairments. The work package consists of two linked studies: 1) a nationally representative survey on the

attitudes and behaviour of employers towards persons with mobility impairments, and 2) case studies of

specific workplaces.

The objective of the first study is to classify different types of employers. The study advances similar studies

on employers and active labour market policies (Bredgaard, 2017; Bredgaard & Halkjær, 2016) and

distinguishes between four types of employers: committed employers, sceptical employers, passive

employers, and dismissive employers (see table 2).

Table 2. The attitudes and behaviour of employers towards persons with mobility impairments

Positive attitudes Negative attitudes

Positive action Committed employers Sceptical employers

Negative action Passive employers Dismissive employers

The typology makes it possible to characterise and measure the proportion of employers that are committed

to recruit and retain persons with mobility impairments and compare them to dismissive employers. It will

also allow us to better understand why passive employers refrain from recruiting persons with disabilities

(e.g., lack of information) and why sceptical employers have negative attitudes despite their positive

participation (e.g., prejudice, bad experiences). The typology, therefore, enables us to understand what

characterises different types of employers and allows better and more targeted public strategies to influence

the attitudes and behaviours of employers (e.g., information and outreach campaigns).

8

The second study within WP3 examines the motives, experiences, and attitudes of employers towards

persons with mobility impairments through strategically selected case studies. From the survey, eight

companies are selected (two for each type of employer above) and in-depth interviews are conducted with

management, employees (including persons with mobility impairments), and trade unions.

The two studies will provide a solid base of evidence on the attitudes and behaviour of different types of

employers and will assist in identifying jobs and workplaces with a potential for improving the match between

persons with mobility impairments and the labour market.

9

WP3. Match - Employment services for persons with mobility impairments (project leaders: Finn

Amby and Lena Kjeldsen)

The purpose of WP3 is to gain and disseminate knowledge about the jobcentres experiences, focus, and

organisation of initiatives to match persons with mobility impairments with the labour market. Existing

research shows significant and often unexplainable differences in the implementation and effects of

municipal employment policies and initiatives (Larsen, 2009; Bille, 2016). A survey combined with

interviews in 2012 among managers and key workers in the field of disability in Danish jobcentres found

only few systematic efforts to provide support for job-ready unemployed persons with disabilities (Amby,

2015a). Additionally, an unpublished study by Amby and Kjeldsen (2017) found similar results at the level of

caseworkers. This lack of focus, which is potentially a product of “information gaps” and what we might

term “administrative aversive disableism”, is also underlined by the fact that people with disabilities are not

included in the definition of target groups in the general employment policy, and recent reforms seem to

continue on the same path (Amby, 2015b). Consequently, the knowledge of what actually works in

matching people with disabilities and the labour market is limited.

The work package consists of two linked activities: 1) a survey among managers and key caseworkers (key

informants) with a focus on disability in jobcentres and 2) a qualitative case study that highlights the

interplay between health- and employment-related rehabilitation and the interplay between social and

employment services concerning compensation and support for independent living.

The objective of the jobcentre survey is twofold. First, the survey is a continuation of the national survey

among persons with mobility impairment and employers in WP1 and WP2, but now seen through the

perspective of jobcentres. Second, the objective of the survey is to gain insight into the construction of

mobility impairments as a group and the practices and the level of focus on people with mobility

impairments. We expect that some of the same themes relevant in the first survey will also be relevant in

this survey (construction of the target group through a prism of ableist norms, informational barriers and

asymmetries). Regarding the construction of people with mobility impairments as a group, we also find

inspiration in the categories used by our neighbours in Norway and Sweden in order to determine the

degree to which Danish jobcentres use similar categories (cf. Garsten & Jacobsson, 2013; Angelov &

Eliason, 2014). To be able to identify the practices and level of focus in the jobcentres, we ask questions

concerning the visitation process as people enter the jobcentre, which entails the contact between the

unemployed person and the jobcentre, and the Act on Compensation, which concerns the compensatory

arrangements for people with disabilities.

The objective of the case study is to gain insight into the cooperation and potential barriers between the

different systems that have importance for the labour market situation of people with mobility

impairments. The study will consist of qualitative interviews with caseworkers in the employment, health,

and social sectors in three municipalities. The study will also shed light on the importance of specialised

knowledge and services based on medically defined diagnosis to the employment situation. This is

illustrated by comparing municipalities that have made use of rehabilitation for people with severe mobility

impairments at the Specialized Hospital for Polio and Accident Victims and municipalities without such

experiences.

10

WP4. Innovation camps (project leaders: Ditte Shamshiri-Pedersen and Julia Salado Rasmussen)

Building on the research findings, the ambition of the Bevica Centre for Labour Market Research is to

combine research and practice in innovative and collaborative ways. The main mechanism for establishing a

partnership between research and practice is “innovation camps”. Innovation camps are facilitated

meetings between the three parties of a “good matching process” (persons with mobility impairments, the

employment system, and the employers) (see figure 2).

Figure 2. Partnership and cooperation between research and practice

Innovations camps are inspired by the research fields of knowledge mobilisation (Davies et. al, 2015; Swan

et. al, 2016), cooperative knowledge production (Hüttemann & Sommerfeld, 2008), and action research

(Lewin, 1948; Nielsen & Svensson, 2006). The main idea is to avoid the traditional and ineffective one-way

knowledge diffusion process from research to practice. Instead, the innovation camps intend to establish

two-way knowledge production and transfer processes in which research is qualified by practice and

practice is qualified by research, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Innovation camps are meeting points and learning arenas between research and practice. We will arrange

four camps during the life cycle of the project. Initially, the participants will give advice on the research

design and data collection methods to make sure that it is responsive and useful to the field. Subsequently,

the initial research findings will be presented, discussed, and interpreted together with the stakeholders. In

the last phases of the project, the objective is to identify new and legitimate measures and instruments to

improve the labour market integration of persons with mobility impairments, especially focusing on

breaking down the information asymmetries of the labour market and reducing prejudice. The innovation

camps will bring together representatives of persons with mobility impairments, the Danish organisation

for people with disabilities, representatives of municipalities, jobcentres and employers, the regional labour

market authorities, and the social partners (employer associations and trade unions).

11

Timetable

2018 (jan-june) 2018 (july-dec) 2019 (jan-june) 2019 (july-dec) 2020 (jan-june) 2020 (july-dec)

Joint activites

Opening conference x

Collection and synthesis of existing litterature x x x

Submission of peer-reviewed articles x x

Submission of Danish book x

Participation in international conferences x x x

Findings and conclusion conference

WP 1. Persons with mobility impairments

Survey x

Case study x x x

WP 2. Employers

Survey x

Case studies x x

WP 3. Employment services

Survey x

Case studies x x

WP 4. Innovations camps

Innovations camps x x x

12

References Amby, F. (2015a). Målgruppen der forsvandt – Handicapområdets position I dansk beskæftigelsespolitik og

hvordan ledige med handicap kan komme I ordinær beskæftigelse [The target group that

disappeared]. Copenhagen: Frydenlund Academic.

Amby, F. (2015b). Disability and employment: political goals and local practice. Paper presented at Street-

level research in the employment and social policy area, 18–19 November 2015.

Amby, F., & Kjeldsen, L. (2017). Categorizing clients with disabilities. Exploring the gap between political

goals and practice in Danish job centers. Paper presented at Street-level research in the employment

and social policy area, 21–22 June 2017.

Ameri, M., Schur, L., Ayda, M., Bentley, S., McKay, P., & Kruse D. (2015). The Disability Employment Puzzle:

A Field Experiment on Employment Hiring Behaviour. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 21560.

Angelov, N., & Eliason, M. (2014). Vilka arbetssökande kodas som funktionshindrade av

Arbetsförmedlingen? IFAU, University of Uppsala, Sweden.

Baert, S. (2017). Hiring discrimination: An Overview of (Almost) All Correspondence Experiments Since 2005.

IZA Institute of Labour Economics, Discussion paper no. 10738.

Bengtsson, S. (1997). Handicap og funktionshæmning i halvfemserne. Copenhagen: SFI –

Socialforskningsinstituttet, 97:01.

Bengtsson, S., & Stigaard, D. L. (2011). Aktuel Skandinavisk og Britisk Handicapforskning. Copenhagen: Det

Nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd – SFI, 11:44.

Brand, J. E. (2015). The Far-Reaching Impact of Job Loss and Unemployment. Annual Review of Sociology, 41,

359–375.

Brannen, J. (2005) Mixing Methods. The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the Research

Process, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8:3, pp. 173-184.

Bille, R. (2016): Implementering af beskæftigelsespolitik i Danmark – et litteraturstudie. SFI - Det Nationale

Forskningscenter for Velfærd.

Bredgaard, T. (2017). Employers and Active Labour Market Policies: Typologies and Evidence. Social Policy

and Society, 1–13.

Bredgaard, T. (2014). Virksomhedernes sociale ansvar – Et studie i politisk forandring. Aalborg

Universitetsforlag.

Bredgaard, T., H. Jørgensen, P.K. Madsen & S. Rasmussen (2016): Dansk arbejdsmarkedspolitik, Copenhagen:

Jurist- og Økonomforbundets forlag [Danish Labour Market policy] (second edition).

Bredgaard, T., & Madsen, P. K. (Eds.) (2016). Dansk flexicurity – fleksibilitet og sikkerhed på arbejdsmarkedet.

Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Bredgaard, T., & Halkjær, J. L. (2016). Employers and the Implementation of Active Labour Market Policies,

Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 6(1), 47–59.

Bredgaard, T., Larsen, F., & Madsen, P. K. (2005). The Flexible Danish Labour Market – A Review. Aalborg:

Centre for Labour Marker Research.

13

Cahuc, P., Carcillo, S., & Zyllerberg, A. (2014). Labour Economics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism : The production of disability and abledness. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Carey, A. C., Potts, B. B., Bryen, D. N., & Shankar, J. (2004). Networking Towards Employment: Experiences

of People Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Research & Practice for Persons

with Severe Disabilities, 29(1), 40–52.

Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis : with applications in the social

behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Damgaard, M., Steffensen, T., & Bengtsson, S. (2013). Hverdagsliv og levevilkår for mennesker med

funktionsnedsættelser. København: SFI - Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd.

Dansk Handicap Forbund (2016). Mennesker med bevægelseshandicap på arbejdsmarkedet – et

virksomhedsperspektiv. Survey udført af Epinion for Dansk Handicapforbund.

Dansk Handicap Forbund (2015): Undersøgelse af barrierer for inklusion af mennesker med

bevægelseshandicap på arbejdsmarkedet – En kvalitativ analyse. København: Dansk Handicap

Forbund.

Davies, H. T., Powell, A. E., & Nutley, S. M. (2015): .Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care:

learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Southampton, UK:

NIHR Journals Library.

DA (2017). Job og Handicap. Copenhagen: Danish Employers Association.

De Økonomiske Råd (2017). Dansk Økonomi – Forår 2017. Copenhagen: De Økonomiske Råd.

Deal, M. (2007). Aversive disablism: subtle prejudice toward disabled people. Disability & Society, 22(1),

93–107.

Dovidio, J., Pagotto, L., & Hebl, M. R. (2011). Implicit Attitudes and Discrimination Against People with

Physical Disabilities. In R. L. Weiner & S. L. Willborn (Eds.), Disability and Aging Discrimination:

Perspectives in Law and Psychology (pp. 157–183). New York: Springer.

Dunn, D. S. (2015). The social psychology of disability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias : the common ingroup identity model. New

York: Routledge.

Garsten, C., & Jacobsson, K. (2013). Sorting people in and out: The plasticity of the categories of

employability, work capacity and disability as technologies of government. Ephemera, 13(4), 825–

850.

Granovetter, M. S. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Gensby, U., & Thuesen, F. (2010). På vej mod job efter en arbejdsskade: En evaluering af

arbejdsskadestyrelsens fastholdelsescenter. Kbh: SFI - Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd.

Hagenaars, J. A., & McCutcheon, A. L. (2002). Applied latent class analysis. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

14

Hall, E., & Wilton, R. (2011). Alternative spaces of “work” and inclusion for disabled people. Disability &

Society, 26(7), 867–880.

Hensvik, L., & Skans, O. N. (2016). Social Networks, Employee Selection, and Labor Market Outcomes.

Journal of Labor Economics, 34(4), 825–867.

Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer Attitudes Toward Workers with Disabilities and

their ADA Employment Rights : A Literature Review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 4–16.

Holland, J., Thomson, R. and Henderson, S. (2006): Qualitative Longitudinal Research: A Discussion Paper.

Families & Social Capital ESRC Research Group paper no. 1. London: December, 2006.

Holt, H. & Mehlsen, L. (2017): Rummelighed I praksis – Forudsætninger for gode inklusionsforløb på

kommunale arbejdspladser. SFI-rapport 17:09.

Holt, H., & Nilsson, K. (2013). Arbejdsfastholdelse af skadelidte medarbejdere – virksomheders rolle og

erfaringer. Copenhagen: Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd – SFI.

Holmqvist, M. (2008): Creating the Disabled Person: A Case Study of Recruitment to “Work-for-the-

Disabled” Programs, in Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research Vol. 10, No. 3, 191-207

Hüttemann, M., & Sommerfeld, P. (2008). Relating Science and Practice in Social Work – A Critical and

Constructive Review of the Concept of Evidence-Based Practice. In I. Bryderup (Ed.), Evidence-based

and Knowledge-based Social Work. Aarhus University Press.

Ibsen, F., & Stamhus, J. (2016). Arbejdsmarkedsøkonomi. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.

Jakobsen, V., Larsen, M., & Jensen, S. (2015). Virksomhedernes sociale engagement – årbog 2015. SFI – Det

Nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd, 15:44.

Jones, M. K. (2008). Disability and the labour market: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of

Economic Studies, 35(5), 405–424.

Kjeldsen, M. M., Hougaard, H. S., & Høgelund, J. (2013). Handikap og beskæftigelse – udviklingen mellem

2002 og 2012. SFI – Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd.

Larsen, C. A., & Vesan, P. (2012). Why public employment services always fail. Double-sided asymmetric

information and the placement of low-skill workers in six european countries. Public Administration,

90(2), 466–479.

Larsen, F. (2009). Kommunal beskæftigelsespolitik. Frydenlund Academic.

Larsen, M. R., & Larsen, M. (2017). Handicap, beskæftigelse og uddannelse i 2016 [Disability, employment

and education]. Copenhagen: The Danish National Centre for Social Research – SFI.

Larsen, M. R., & Høgelund, J. (2015). Handikap og beskæftigelse – udviklingen mellem 2002-2014. SFI – Det

Nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd 15:06.

Larsen, B., Schademan, H. K., & Høgelund, J. (2008). Handicap og beskæftigelse i 2006. Vilkår og betingelser

for handicappede på arbejdsmarkedet. Copenhagen: SFI – Det Nationale Forskningscenter for

Velfærd, 08:10.

15

Larsen, C. A., & Pedersen, J. J. (2009). Ledighedsparadokset – Information, netværk og selektion på

arbejdsmarkedet. Frydenlund Academic.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper and Row.

Mcleod, J., & Thompson, R. (2009). Qualitative Longitudinal Research. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), SAGE

Biographical Research (pp. 59–79). London: SAGE.

Mik-Meyer, N. (2016a). Othering, ableism and disability: A discursive analysis of co-workers construction of

colleagues with visible impairments. Human Relations, 69(6), 1341–1363.

Mik-Meyer, N. (2016b): Disability and ’care’: Managers, employees and colleagues with impairments

negotiating the social order of disability. In Work, employment and society vol. 30, issue 6 pp. 984-999

Morgan, R. L., & Alexander, M. (2005). The employer ’s perception : Employment of individuals with

developmental disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 23, 39–49.

Nielsen, K. A., & Svensson, L. (2006). Action and interactive research: beyond practice and theory.

Maastricht: Shaker Publishing.

Peck, B., & Kirkbride, L. T. (2001). Why businesses don’t employ people with disabilities. Journal of

Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 71–75.

Pinkston, J. C. (2009). A model of asymmetric employer learning with testable implications. Review of

Economic Studies, 76(1), 367–394.

Potts, B. (2005). Disability and Employment: Considering the Importance of Social Capital. Journal of

Rehabilitation, 71(3), 20–25.

Rambøll (2014). Metaevaluering af handicaprettede beskæftigelsesprojekter 2005-2013. Report

commisioned by the Danish Agency for Labour Market and Recruitment.

Schur, L., Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of persons with disabilities.

Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(1), 3–20.

Swan, J., Newell, S., & Nicolini, D. (2016). Mobilizing knowledge in healthcare: Challenges for management

and organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thuesen, F. (2012). The Elbowroom of Vulnerable Workers: Stakeholder theories and the dynamics of an

inclusive labor market. Presented at the Nordic Worklife Conference Elsinore 15 April 2012.

Thuesen, F. (2016). Linguistic barriers and bridges: constructing social capital in ethnically diverse low-skill

workplaces. Work, Employment & Society, 1–17.

OECD (2010). Sickness, Disability and Work – Breaking the Barriers. Paris: OECD.