The adaptation process of employees with disabilities in the university environment – barriers and facilitators

Abstract

Introduction  The admission and retention of civil servants in federal universities is a topic that has been little explored in Brazilian scientific literature.

Objective  To analyze facilitators and barriers in the process of work admission and adaptation of people with disabilities (PWD) at a Brazilian public university.

Methods  A qualitative, descriptive, and exploratory study, based on documentary content analysis and analysis of semi-structured interviews with PWD employees at a federal university.

Results  17 records of active PWD civil servants at the time of the research were identified, of which two (one man and one woman) responded to the interview. Personal relationships and relationships with internal administrative sectors were seen as facilitators, while the barriers were related to a lack of accessibility and social stigmas of hierarchization in the academic sphere. The way in which quotas are applied by the university can also be considered one work admission barrier for these civil servants.

Conclusion  The process of adaptation to work for people with disabilities is influenced by three elements: (lack of) accessibility, social relations in the workplace, and the administrative system. It is necessary to rethink admission and adaptation to work, promote improvements in the physical structure and invest in actions aimed at improving health of PWD workers.

Keywords:
Social Inclusion; Persons with Disabilities; Occupational Health; Universities; Social Adjustment

Resumo

Introdução  O ingresso e a permanência de funcionários públicos nas universidades federais é um tema pouco explorado na literatura científica brasileira.

Objetivo  Analisar facilitadores e barreiras no processo de ingresso e adaptação ao trabalho de pessoas com deficiência (PCD) em uma universidade pública brasileira.

Métodos  Estudo qualitativo, descritivo e exploratório, baseado em análise de conteúdo documental e análise de entrevistas semiestruturadas com servidores PCD de uma universidade federal.

Resultados  Foram identificados 17 registros de servidores PCD ativos no momento da pesquisa, sendo que dois (um homem e uma mulher) responderam à entrevista. As relações pessoais e com setores administrativos internos foram vistas como facilitadores, enquanto as barreiras estão relacionadas à falta de acessibilidade e a estigmas sociais de hierarquização na esfera acadêmica. A forma como as vagas de cotas são aplicadas pela universidade também pode ser considerada uma barreira no ingresso desses servidores.

Conclusão  O processo de adaptação ao trabalho de PCD é influenciado por três elementos: (falta de) acessibilidade, relações sociais no ambiente de trabalho e sistema administrativo. Faz-se necessário repensar o ingresso e a adaptação ao trabalho, promover melhorias na estrutura física e investir em ações voltadas à saúde do trabalhador PCD.

Palavras-chave:
Inclusão Social; Pessoas com Deficiência; Universidades; Adequação Social, Saúde do Trabalhador

Introduction

In Brazil, the 1988 Federal Constitution¹ guarantees everyone the right to decent work, with equal opportunities, and establishes principles of social protection and inclusion. Moreover, the constitutional text addresses the conditions for workers to participate fully in the labor market, as well as in public administration. Article 7 provides that labor rights such as fair wages, limited working hours and protection against discrimination. Similarly, Article 37 establishes rules of access and equality for public servants, respecting the principles of legality, impersonality and morality.

Thus, it can be seen that the Constitution not only recognizes the right to work but also provides the mechanisms to make equality and non-discrimination effective, serving as a legal foundation for public policies and subsequent legislation aimed at including people with disabilities (PWD).

As a result, Law No. 7.853/1989² was enacted, providing support for the disabled and their social integration, guaranteeing equality, opportunity, justice, respect, dignity, and well-being. In 1990, Law No. 8.112³ was created, dealing with the legal system for civil servants of the Federal Government, municipalities, and federal public foundations. In article 5, item 2, the law guarantees PWDs the right to register for public tenders, and the duties of the position must be consistent with the person’s disability, as well as providing for up to 20% of the vacancies offered in the public tender to be allocated to PWDs.

As a way of ensuring the basic rights of these people, Decree No. 3.298⁴ was approved in 1999, which regulates Law No. 7.853/1989 and defines who is considered to be disabled. In it, disabilities and their conditions considered by law are divided into: physical, hearing, visual, mental, and multiple disabilities. This decree also determines that at least 5% of vacancies in federal public tenders must be reserved for people with disabilities.

Another important milestone was Law No. 10.436/2002⁵, which officially recognized the Brazilian Sign Language (LIBRAS) as a legal means of communication and expression, later regulated by Decree No. 5.626/2005⁶, which determined the training of teachers, interpreters and the dissemination of Libras in education systems. The following decade saw the incorporation of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved in Brazil by Legislative Decree No. 186/2008⁷and enacted by Decree No. 6.949/2009⁸.

This historical journey resulted in the enactment of Law No. 13.146/2015⁹, known as the Brazilian Inclusion Law (LBI) or Statute of Persons with Disabilities, which came into force in January 2016. Through the LBI, it was possible to systematize and expand the rights already guaranteed, integrating them into a single legal instrument and reaffirming the country’s commitment to full citizenship, accessibility, and the social inclusion of people with disabilities. This law⁹ brought about a significant change in the way disability is understood in Brazil, bringing national legislation closer to international perspectives on human rights and social inclusion. Unlike previous conceptions, which saw disability only as a limitation of the individual, the LBI proposes a multidimensional view, considering the interaction between the person and the social, physical, and institutional environment.

In this new understanding, disability is not restricted to personal characteristics, but stems from the interaction between long-term impediments, whether physical, sensory, intellectual, or mental, and barriers present in the social environment, which can hinder the individual’s full participation in society. Thus, factors such as inaccessibility, discriminatory attitudes, or lack of adapted resources become central to the analysis of disability, showing that social exclusion is not only a consequence of the individual’s limitation, but also of the context in which they live.

Regarding admission into public administration jobs, Decree No. 12.533/2025¹⁰, which amends Decree No. 9.508/2018¹¹, comes into force to guarantee a percentage reservation of public positions and jobs for people with disabilities in federal selection processes, directly and indirectly. It highlights the guarantee of the right of the PWD to compete on equal terms with other candidates in public tenders and selection processes, as well as the guarantee of accessibility in the workplace and reasonable adaptation for the PWD to work fully.

According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)¹², people without disabilities have 66.4% participation in the labor market, while for the PWDs, this rate is considerably lower, at just 29.2%. The difference can also be seen in the unemployment rate, characterized as the percentage of people in the workforce who are unemployed, i.e. who are looking for a job but cannot find one, totaling 9.1% for PWDs and 8.7% for people without disabilities.

It is clear that, although the implementation of public policies promotes the inclusion of people with disabilities in the labor market, there are several factors that limit this inclusion. Quotas are intended to enable the hiring of people with disabilities, but cannot guarantee their effective inclusion, and this issue is essential to the pursuit of a society with equality and equity¹³.

Among the barriers that make it difficult for people to enter and remain in employment is the lack of accessibility through architectural barriers, which limit social participation in public spaces, external and internal areas, and means of locomotion¹⁴. These barriers range from physical structures, such as stairs without handrails or uneven floors, to distant parking spaces without cover. This lack of adaptation in the environment makes it difficult to hire people with disabilities, and companies prefer to hire people with “less compromising” disabilities, reinforcing the capitalist discourse, which always aims for the greatest ability and capacity of employees to produce¹³. Attitudes like these perpetuate a long history of exclusion¹⁵:

[...] in economic terms, people with disabilities are vulnerable and significantly excluded from the labor market. The capitalist model imposes rules regarding certain physical and intellectual skills that workers must fulfill to be considered suitable for the job (p. 40).

In the specific context of federal universities, it is essential that, in addition to the laws that guarantee the admission of PWD to competitive examinations, such as Law No. 8.112/1990³, these institutions implement actions guaranteeing the inclusion, adequate support, and effective permanence of these employees in the academic environment¹⁶.

The importance of university’s role in the inclusion of people with disabilities goes beyond compliance with the law. It is about promoting equity, diversity and valuing differences, contributing to building a fairer and more inclusive society. By creating a work environment that respects and welcomes diversity, the university not only benefits employees with disabilities, but also enriches the academic environment, promotes the exchange of experiences and knowledge, and stimulates innovation and creativity. The university therefore has the responsibility and potential to be an agent of social transformation¹⁶.

It should be noted that new research on this subject is important, as it allows us to identify the challenges faced by civil servants with disabilities in universities, raise awareness among managers, teachers and other professionals, contributing to the development of more inclusive and accessible policies and practices¹⁷.

Furthermore, research provides a theoretical and empirical basis for the implementation of affirmative action and public policies aimed at promoting inclusion and equity in the university environment and in the labor market in general, making it fundamental for understanding, facing, and overcoming the challenges related to the inclusion of professors and technical staff with disabilities in universities.

In view of the above, the aim of this study was to understand and analyze the facilitators and barriers in the process of admission and adaptation to work for staff with disabilities who entered a public university in southern Brazil through quotas or open competition. The study also aims to understand the experience of these professionals within the university and identify their strategies for overcoming challenges.

Methods

This is a qualitative, descriptive, and exploratory study¹⁸carried out between January 2024 and November 2024.

To understand the process of admission through quotas at the university, documents available on the website of the Pro-Rectory of Personnel Management (PROGEPE) were analyzed: meeting minutes and notices of ongoing, rectified, and consolidated tenders¹⁹.

The strategy for identifying potential participants in the survey was developed in conjunction with the university’s PROGEPE, which provided the names of professionals compatible with the defined profile. The inclusion criteria for the participants were: being a PWD who had joined the university as a civil servant through quotas or through open competition, and agreeing to take part in the study.

Seventeen active civil servants with a PWD profile were identified and their contact e-mail addresses were obtained from the university platform. They were invited to take part in the study on a voluntary basis by answering an interview. The message emphasized that participation in the study required signing the Informed Consent Form (ICF), which the participants did.

A semi-structured interview²⁰ was used to gather information on the experience of disabled staff at the university, as well as the barriers and facilitators to their work. The questionnaire was drawn up by the researchers in this study and administered during interviews by the authors SCB, SSC, and NBV (Table 1). The questions were aimed at obtaining personal and general data on the interviewee, such as academic background, length of service, and work history, and those related to the subject of the research were divided into categories to aid subsequent analysis:

Table 1
Semi-structured interview

Participant data: 1. Name, social name (if any), age, gender, level of education, training, area of work. 2. How long have you worked at the university? 3. Is this your first job? If not, where did you work before? Selection process and quota law: 4. Did you get the position through Quota Law? 5. Did you declare that you were a PWD when you entered university? 6. How do you rate the selection process in terms of inclusion? 7. Did you need any kind of help (adaptation) to complete the selection process? If so, which ones? 8. How was your selection process for the job? Permanence in the workplace: 9. When you joined, did you have any kind of training for the work you had to do? 10. Did you need to adapt to do your job? Did the university provide this adaptation? 11. Have you had/do you have opportunities for professional growth? 12. Does this job give you stability? Difficulties and barriers: 13. What are your main difficulties in relation to work? 14. How was your first contact with your teammates and superiors? 15. How is communication at work? Do you have any difficulties? 16. Have you come across any behavioral or attitudinal barriers in your work environment? If so, which ones? Accessibility: 17. What are the main physical and environmental barriers you have encountered? 18. Does the university have the necessary accessibility for you? 19. Have you noticed if you also have organizational barriers? If so, which ones? 20. Is the technology offered by the university accessible? Situations of prejudice: 21. Have you ever suffered any kind of prejudice within the academic community? 22. Have you ever suffered any kind of discrimination, such as being singled out or treated unequally? 23. Have you ever experienced an episode of ableism? Questions based on the components of the ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health)* Body functions and structures: (questions only according to a person’s declared or reported disability/limitation) 24. What are the main challenges you face in terms of mobility, coordination, sensitivity, or other work-related body functions? 25. Do you feel that work activities are difficult and/or interfere with sensory abilities such as vision, hearing, or tactile sensation? 26. Do you feel that work activities impact on or are difficult in terms of mental functions, such as memory, concentration, reasoning, or cognitive abilities? Activities and participation: 27. Are there any activities related to your work that you find challenging due to your disability? If so, what are the main ones? 28. Do you feel that you are able to participate fully in professional and social activities (such as get-togethers) in the workplace? If not, what are the obstacles? 29. Do you think that the conditions proposed for meeting deadlines, carrying out specific tasks, or getting involved in decision-making processes at work are ideal? Why? 30. Do you feel that your disability affects the way you communicate effectively with colleagues or supervisors in the workplace? Please explain. Environmental factors: 31. What are the main environmental factors in your workplace that help or hinder you in carrying out your tasks? 32. Do you receive the necessary support in terms of physical, technological, or organizational adaptations in the workplace? 33. How does the attitude of your colleagues, supervisors, and the institution towards your disability affect your work experience? 34. Do you face architectural or accessibility barriers in the workplace that limit your participation or performance?

• Source: own elaboration (2024)
• *The discussion/results on the ICF part were not included in this article.

• Selection process and use of quotas: whether the selection process they underwent provided for quotas for people with disabilities; how the selection process took place, whether any environmental adaptations were needed for the tests to be carried out; and how the examination for admission to the vacancy was carried out;

• Permanence in the workplace: whether they underwent training to fill the position, the need for environmental adaptations and assistive technology, the opportunity for professional growth and stability;

• Difficulties and barriers: the main difficulties, relationships with colleagues, communication issues, and attitudinal barriers in the workplace, such as the invalidation of non-apparent disabilities, the association that disability is related to a lack of autonomy, attitudes based on prejudices and stigmas that hurt the dignity of people with disabilities;

• Accessibility: the main physical, environmental, and organizational barriers and whether the university promotes digital accessibility through specialized tools such as screen readers and magnifiers;

• Situations of prejudice: whether you have ever suffered any kind of discrimination and/or ableism.

The interviews were conducted via the online platform used professionally by the institution, from May 5 to August 28, 2024. The conversations were recorded in full for later analysis of the responses, using the Categorical Content Analysis method²¹.

To understand the barriers and facilitators experienced in everyday life, all the disabled employees identified by PROGEPE were contacted by institutional e-mail. Four responded to the initial contact, but only two interviews could be carried out as the others did not follow up on the email communication.

After the interviews, the material was pre-analyzed²¹, with the transcript being reviewed by one of the authors (SCB) and corrected when there was an inconsistency between the recording and the automatic transcription. The answers were separated into pre-established categories and compiled to explore the material.

In the second stage, analyzed by SCB, SSC, and NBV, the answers of both interviewees, within each category, were compared with each other and with the studies found on the subject, seeking to identify patterns and explanations for their meaning. Finally, the results were processed jointly by all the authors, summarizing the main findings of the research presented in this study.

The names of the professional respondents were coded to protect their data, and the interviews were transcribed automatically by the platform. In an attempt to organize and analyze the information to respond to the study’s objectives, the entire content of the responses was analyzed in the categories previously established in the interview questions and discussed by SCB, SSC, and NBV.

This study is part of the research project “Inclusion of people with disabilities at work” approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) of the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) under registration number 22640919.9.0000.0102, on November 13, 2019, and by the Research Committee of the Health Sector of UFPR, on February 12, 2020.

Results

Notice no. 99/2023¹⁹, chosen for analysis because it is the most recent notice in which PWD have been admitted (according to PROGEPE), based on Law no. 8.112/1990³, determines that the minimum percentage of vacancies reserved for PWD is 5% of all vacancies offered in the university’s multiple areas and campuses. It is decided which vacancies will be allocated to the PWD by drawing lots. In cases where a candidate has registered to apply for a quota position and the number of vacancies has not reached the quota percentage, or for positions not included in the draw, he or she may be called up if a vacancy in the desired position becomes available during the term of the notice. This procedure must follow the guidelines contained in the table guiding the call-ups, in Annex II of the aforementioned notice.

The procedure referred to in the notice states that the first and second candidates to be called will be from the broad competition; the third will be from the quota for the black population; the fourth will again be from the broad competition; and, finally, the fifth on the list will be from the PWD quota. This pattern will be followed until all available vacancies are filled. It is worth noting that people who apply for more than one category of quota can apply for each of these vacancies at the same time, for example, a PWD vacancy and a quota for the black population.

To apply for a PWD vacancy, the person must declare in the application that they are PWD and send a recent medical report to prove their disability and its level or degree. Moreover, the candidate also has the possibility of special assistance for the tests, upon request and approval.

If the PWD is invited to apply for the position, they will have to undergo a medical assessment by the university’s multidisciplinary team, to assess their condition and check that their disability is compatible with the position they have chosen.

The 17 active PWD civil servants identified by PROGEPE are considered by the institution to occupy a PWD vacancy, but not all of them applied for a quota vacancy in the tenders they entered. It was noted that only four of them seem to have entered through the PWD quota vacancy provided for in the public notice, while the other 13 are supposed to have taken the test through the broad competition and applied for a PWD vacancy after the result, or declared their disability only in the admission process. No records were identified of teachers taking up a post using the PWD quota.

Of the 17 PWD employees, eight are female and nine are male; 11 work in administration, three as technicians in the exact sciences, and another three are technicians in the health sector. The predominance of these professionals in the administrative area was explored during the interviews. Both interviewees claim to have been approved by quotas for the PWD and are part of this administrative sector: S2 took up a position as an administration assistant and S4 took up a position as an administrator.

Regarding the selection process, only one of the interviewees said they had needed to adapt: they took the exam in a room on the first floor to avoid stairs and to be near a bathroom.

The bad thing about the tender, when you’re disabled, is the venue, right? Because sometimes [...] the place is far away, or you ask for it to be on the first floor, but until you get to the first-floor building, I think these things are a bit poorly thought out, you know? [...] especially in tenders, a place where you end up taking the bus or an Uber, so it’s not near where you’re going to take the exam (S4).

In the professional admission process, civil servants approved through quotas for people with disabilities must undergo an examination by the university to confirm their disability. Server S4 reported that there was suspicion about his disability, but the physical examination revealed that he had spina bifida. In this process, server S2 failed and had to go to court, taking two years to take up her post. The expert claimed that her monocular vision did not meet the requirements for the position, and questioned the veracity of their disability and autonomy, as she went to the exam site without a companion to help them along the way.

I have monocular vision, but I have a normal life like this, sometimes I need some things to be enlarged and I wear glasses. Anyway, [...] I got there and he said to me: “Wow, did you come alone?” [...] and he said: “No, because if you’re monocular, you can’t walk alone”. [...] he said I was unfit. I couldn’t take on the job (S2).

As for the multidisciplinary expert team, S2 said:

[...] they say that the expert is a general practitioner [...] in my mind he had to be an ophthalmologist, for example. If (he) wanted to question my ICD (he would say) “then I’m going to refer you to our ophthalmologist so they can see if this ICD is correct” (S2).

When asked about staying in the job, server S2 reported having received training for the service to be performed in the position she was hired for, while server S4 reported not having received any training. This divergence also occurred in questions about adapting the workstation: S2’s workplace did not need adapting, while S4 reported that the place where he had been hired did not have the necessary accessibility. S4 reported this difficulty to the administrative department and was immediately reassigned to a new department in the same position he had been hired for, where he could carry out his activities independently. Although it was the technician himself who indicated the need to change location, the attitude of the people in this sector was seen as a facilitator in the process of adapting to the job. Both reported that they have opportunities for progression inherent in the position and that the job brings financial stability.

In the category of difficulties and barriers, the answers also had different results. For S2, there is an attitudinal barrier in relation to communication with other professionals at the university, especially teachers, but this is not related to her disability, as most of them don’t know that she is a disabled person. The relationship with her colleagues and superiors was seen as a facilitator.

[...] I deal a lot not only with technicians, but also with teachers. So sometimes teachers, even because they’re teachers, already think they’re a bit superior to administrative staff. There aren’t many like that there, they’re isolated cases, but there still are. [...] sometimes we need to have that point of view, we have to impose ourselves a bit (S2).

For S4, the main difficulties are related to the accessibility category, such as a distant bathroom, a single bathroom for many employees, a building with stairs and no elevator, a parking space for people with disabilities far from the entrance to the building, and a lack of handrails in some corridors.

I feel that the university is a bit lacking in embracing the PWD issue in these things I mentioned, a handrail, a nice bathroom [...] the university proposes to welcome minorities properly [...] but the infrastructure part, which involves spending and staff, the university still has a lot of problems (S4).

Moreover, S4 had to adapt his workplace on his own in order to carry out his job more efficiently, as the university had not taken sufficient steps to remove or minimize architectural barriers so that he could carry out his work.

I had this problem with the bathroom being on the second floor. [...] There was literally only one bathroom for [...] 45 civil servants. So, it was quite complicated, because if you don’t have bladder control and you have to fight for a bathroom with 45 people and even get upstairs, you know? So that part was really bad (S4).

S4 also reported the need to wear earplugs due to the noise and expressed physical discomfort with the temperature in the room and the unsuitable chairs. For S2, other factors that could interfere with her work were circumvented with the use of magnifying glasses.

Regarding the technology offered by the university, both considered it to be accessible.

When asked about situations of prejudice within the university environment, they both recounted episodes: S2 experienced a situation of ableism during her examination to take up her post, which has already been reported, and S4 pointed out that his disability was repeatedly made invisible, as some people questioned him because they didn’t understand his needs.

[...] he said to me “oh, I’m going to leave you [as] unfit” and, depending on who understands, unfit, here, you’re incapable, right? [...] you don’t have the capacity, you’re going to be here, but I don’t know, right? Then you have to demand your rights, depending on the person, you collapse right there and you don’t demand it anymore, right?

[...] when you use a wheelchair, nobody questions whether you have a disability, whether you need a certain adaptation. Now, when you have a gait problem, a limp problem or this bathroom issue, right? I’ve always come across people who find it difficult to understand this as a disability. [...] if I need to stop in a disabled parking space, people look at me funny. I’ve even had people swear at me. Because, like, there’s still that question: you’re only disabled if you’re in a wheelchair, right? In a bed, I don’t know (S4).

Discussion

In this study, it was found that the way in which the university makes quota vacancies available in the selection process hinders admission, and the lack of suitable workplaces makes it difficult for PWDs to be present in the academic environment. This is similar to what was observed in a study²² carried out at two other federal universities, which highlighted this selection system as a barrier, restricting the full social and labor participation of people with disabilities. Furthermore, both participants in this study experienced difficulties in the university’s examination to confirm their disability.

According to what S2 reported, the examination in her selection process was carried out by an expert who did not specialize in the specific disability, which is not in line with the provisions of Decree 12.533/2025¹⁰, which establishes that the bodies responsible for selection must have the assistance of a multi-professional and interdisciplinary team, made up of three professionals trained and working in areas consistent with the disability presented by the candidate, one of whom must be a doctor.

Given that this research was carried out at a large federal university which, according to the Transparency Portal²³, has 6,624 active employees at the time of the research and considering that, according to PROGEPE, the university has only 17 employees declared as having a disability, it is certain that §1 of Article 1 of Decree No. 9,508/2018¹¹ is not being complied with, because the institution should have at least 332 employees with disabilities. This has been observed in studies which show that the employability of people with disabilities is still low, even with the law in force.

The finding that most professionals with disabilities hired at the university were in administrative positions is corroborated by other studies²⁴. Together with the report by server S2, who adapted some elements of her work environment on her own, it is interesting to reflect on whether the administrative area is really more inclusive or whether there is just an easier “integration” process than in other areas so that people with disabilities can work without the university changing the environment/demands/structure of the team, thus leaving the process of adapting to the work environment up to the people with disabilities themselves.

One of the interviewees also said that the place where they were asked to work did not have the necessary accessibility, which violates Brazilian legislation, considering Law 10.098/2000²⁵, which, in its chapter IV, establishes standards and criteria to promote accessibility for people with disabilities or reduced mobility in public buildings. Moreover, Decree No. 11.792/2023²⁶ reinforces the obligation to guarantee accessibility in buildings under direct, autarchic, and foundational federal public administration, which corresponds to the university in question. For this reason, the employee had to be relocated to a new sector where they could access their workplace independently. Other studies have also shown that accessibility is an important barrier to the inclusion of PWD at work¹³,¹⁴,²⁷.

In addition, it is interesting to reinforce what one of the interviewees said about the relationship between technicians and teachers. Both are employees of the university and there is no hierarchical relationship between the professions within the academic environment, although some of those in teaching positions consider themselves to be hierarchically superior to technical employees. As a result, there is a feeling of subordination on the part of the technical staff, who are often treated as inferior and asked by teachers to carry out services that are not in line with their job description, and a better definition of the roles of each position is needed²⁸.

It was also possible to observe that there is a difference between what is considered a barrier and a facilitator among the civil servants interviewed. For S2, the facilitators and barriers are not related to her visual impairment, but to social stigmas of hierarchization within university sectors, while for S4, the facilitators and barriers are directly related to his congenital neuromuscular impairment. These findings reinforce the perspective adopted by the Brazilian Law for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, according to which disability is produced through the interaction between the person and the environment, rather than being reduced to an individual condition..

Regarding the participation of people with disabilities in this study, it is believed that the low level of participation was due to the national strike by civil servants and administrative technicians at federal universities, which lasted from February to July 2024.

Conclusion

This study made it possible to gain a deeper understanding of the reality of professionals with disabilities in the academic environment. It is worth noting that the low number of employees - two out of 17 - limited the study and impacted on the generalization and scope of the results.

This study showed the existence of barriers in the process of insertion and permanence of people with disabilities in the public service, such as: social stigmas of hierarchization in the academic sphere and lack of accessible infrastructure. Meanwhile, personal relationships and relationships with other internal sectors were considered facilitators.

The accessibility barriers encountered by civil servants in their working environments reinforce the need for changes to the university’s physical and environmental structure, which can be achieved by budgeting for them in the annual university budget, to provide adequate accessibility for all those who need it.

It was found that admission quotas and the integration of the PWD are not fully complied with. Furthermore, it would be interesting to rethink the application of PWD quotas at university with a view to promoting greater opportunities for this specific population, such as a system other than drafting, together with greater government oversight of the effectiveness of PWD policies.

A social reinterpretation of the technician-teacher relationship is needed, which suggests investing in actions aimed at worker health in the institution. Finally, the predominance of PWD professionals in administrative areas is something to be explored in future research.

References

• ¹ Brasil. Constituição (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Diario Oficial União. 6 out 1988.
• ² Brasil. Lei nº 7.853, de 24 de outubro de 1989. Dispõe sobre o apoio às pessoas portadoras de deficiência, sua integração social, sobre a Coordenadoria Nacional para Integração da Pessoa Portadora de Deficiência - Corde, institui a tutela jurisdicional de interesses coletivos ou difusos dessas pessoas, disciplina a atuação do Ministério Público, define crimes, e dá outras providências. Diario Oficial União. 25 out 1989.
• ³ Brasil. Lei nº 8.112, de 11 de dezembro de 1990. Dispõe sobre o regime jurídico dos servidores públicos civis da União, das autarquias e das fundações públicas federais. Diario Oficial União. 18 mar 1988.
• ⁴ Brasil. Decreto nº 3.298 de 20 de dezembro de 1999. Regulamenta a Lei no 7.853, de 24 de outubro de 1989, dispõe sobre a Política Nacional para a Integração da Pessoa Portadora de Deficiência, consolida as normas de proteção, e dá outras providências.iario Oficial União. 21 dez 1999.
• ⁵ Brasil. Lei nº 10.436, de 24 de abril de 2002. Dispõe sobre a Língua Brasileira de Sinais - Libras e dá outras providências. Diario Oficial União. 25 abr 2002.
• ⁶ Brasil. Decreto nº 5.626, de 22 de dezembro de 2005. Regulamenta a Lei nº 10.436, de 24 de abril de 2002, e o art. 18 da Lei nº 10.098, de 19 de dezembro de 2000. Diario Oficial União. 23 dez 2005.
• ⁷ Brasil. Decreto Legislativo nº 186. de 9 de julho de 2008. Aprova o texto da Convenção sobre os Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência e de seu Protocolo Facultativo, assinados em Nova Iorque, em 30 de março de 2007. Diario Oficial União. 10 jul 2008.
• ⁸ Brasil. Decreto nº 6.949, de 25 de agosto de 2009. Promulga a Convenção Internacional sobre os Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência e seu Protocolo Facultativo, assinados em Nova York, em 20 de março de 2007. Diario Oficial União. 26 ago 2009.
• ⁹ Brasil. Lei nº 13.146, de 6 de julho de 2015. Institui a Lei Brasileira de Inclusão da Pessoa com Deficiência (Estatuto da Pessoa com Deficiência). Diario Oficial União. 7 jul 2015.
• ¹⁰ Brasil. Decreto nº12.533, de 25 de junho de 2025. Altera o Decreto nº 9.508, de 24 de setembro de 2018, que reserva às pessoas com deficiência percentual de cargos e de empregos públicos ofertados em concursos públicos e em processos seletivos no âmbito da administração pública federal direta e indireta. Diario Oficial União. 16 jun 2025.
• ¹¹ Brasil. Decreto nº 9.508, de 24 de setembro de 2018. Reserva às pessoas com deficiência percentual de cargos e de empregos públicos ofertados em concursos públicos e em processos seletivos no âmbito da administração pública federal direta e indireta. Diario Oficial União. 25 set 2018.
• ¹² Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Coordenação de Pesquisas por Amostra de Domicílios. Pessoas com deficiência: 2022. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; 2023. ISBN 978-85-240-4573-8.
• ¹³ Violante RR, Leite LP. A empregabilidade das pessoas com deficiência: uma análise da inclusão social no mercado de trabalho do município de Bauru, SP. Cad Psicol Soc Trab. 2011;14(1):73-91. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-0490.v14i1p73-91
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-0490.v14i1p73-91
• ¹⁴ Pottmeier S, Donida L, Darde AO, Santana AP. Servidores com deficiência na universidade: barreiras para a inclusão. Rev Ibe Est Ed. 2019; 14(4):2377-9. https://doi.org/10.21723/riaee.v14i4.12968
  » https://doi.org/10.21723/riaee.v14i4.12968
• ¹⁵ Teixeira FD. Deficiência no trato da deficiência: as experiências laborais de servidores públicos [dissertação]. Uberlândia: Universidade Federal de Uberlândia; 2016.
• ¹⁶ Sousa ES, Búrigo CC. Política de inserção de servidores com deficiência na universidade: o olhar dos gestores. Navus Rev Gest Tecnol. 2019;9(3):156-72. https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2019.v9n3.p156-172.850
  » https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2019.v9n3.p156-172.850
• ¹⁷ Cunha MD, Bizelli JL, Leite LP, Pereira CC. Um olhar para os servidores públicos com deficiência de universidades públicas brasileiras: da trajetória do ingresso à questão da permanência. IX Congresso Português de Sociologia; 2016. [citado 10 fev 2024] p. 1-13. Disponível em: https://associacaoportuguesasociologia.pt/ix_congresso/docs/final/COM0466.pdf
  » https://associacaoportuguesasociologia.pt/ix_congresso/docs/final/COM0466.pdf
• ¹⁸ Ministério do Desenvolvimento e Assistência Social, Família e Combate à Fome (BR). Manual do pesquisador: métodos e técnicas de pesquisa qualitativa. Brasília, DF; 2023
• ¹⁹ Universidade Federal do Paraná. Edital Nº 99/2023 - PROGEPE UFPR. Curitiba; 2023 [citado 16 abr 2024]. Disponível em: https://progepe.ufpr.br/a/concursos/tecnico/2023_progepe/edital099-2023-consolidado.pdf
  » https://progepe.ufpr.br/a/concursos/tecnico/2023_progepe/edital099-2023-consolidado.pdf
• ²⁰ Flick U. Introdução à metodologia de pesquisa. São Paulo: Grupo A; 2012.
• ²¹ Bardin L. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70; 2016.
• ²² Deitos GP, Moré RP. A inserção de servidores com deficiência em duas universidades federais catarinenses. Desenvolve Rev Gest Unilasalle. 2020; 9(3):45-62. https://doi.org/10.18316/desenv.v9i3.7427
  » https://doi.org/10.18316/desenv.v9i3.7427
• ²³ Controladoria-Geral da União (BR). Portal da Transparência. Brasília, DF: Controladoria Geral da União; 2024 [citado 12 mar 2024]. Disponível em: https://portaldatransparencia.gov.br
  » https://portaldatransparencia.gov.br
• ²⁴ Silva OA, Carvalho-Freitas MN. Inclusão, desenho do trabalho e satisfação de servidores públicos com diferença funcional. Rev Psicol Organ Trab. 2021;21(2):1518-27. Disponível em: https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-66572021000200012
  » https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-66572021000200012
• ²⁵ Brasil. Lei nº 10.098, de 19 de dezembro de 2000. Estabelece normas gerais e critérios básicos para a promoção da acessibilidade das pessoas portadoras de deficiência ou com mobilidade reduzida, e dá outras providências. Diario Oficial União. 20 dez 2000.
• ²⁶ Brasil. Decreto nº 11.792, de 23 de novembro de 2023. Dispõe sobre a acessibilidade nas edificações sob a administração ou a utilização dos órgãos e das entidades da administração pública federal direta, autárquica e fundacional. Diario Oficial União. 23 nov 2023.
• ²⁷ Miranda MM. Projeto de intervenção com vistas a inserir pessoas com necessidades especiais como servidores públicos federais [monografia]. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; 2015 [citado 12 mar 2024]. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/BUBD-A2ZHZD
  » https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/BUBD-A2ZHZD
• ²⁸ Silva LS. Carreiras docente e técnico-administrativa em educação: o olhar desses sujeitos coletivos e a análise de suas relações hierárquicas e de trabalho em uma Universidade Federal [dissertação]. Porto Alegre: Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos; 2018.

• Data availability:
  Personal and administrative data, as well as data collected through interviews, cannot be made available in full due to legal issues and the commitment to anonymity made to the research participants.
• Statement on the use of Artificial Intelligence:
  The authors declare that no artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of this article.
• Presentation at a scientific event:
  The authors inform that the work was presented at the academic week and classified in 1st place in BANCA146-SAÚDE of the 15th SIEPE (Integrated Week of Teaching, Research and Extension) of the Federal University of Paraná, held from November 25 to 29, 2024.
• Funding:
  The work is part of the research project “Inclusion of people with disabilities at work”, in which the author Stela Carvalho Baruel was awarded a Pibic scholarship by the Araucária Foundation.

Edited by

• Responsible editors:
  Selma Lancman
  Raoni Rocha Simões

Data availability

Personal and administrative data, as well as data collected through interviews, cannot be made available in full due to legal issues and the commitment to anonymity made to the research participants.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  09 Mar 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  18 Apr 2025
• Reviewed
  16 Sept 2025
• Accepted
  04 Oct 2025