Journal articles on the topic 'Undue hardship'

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to promote equal employment opportunities for handicapped individuals in the workplace. The law mandates that employers reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities who are qualified to perform the job. However, employers are exempted from this requirement if the reasonable accommodation results in an undue hardship for the organization. The legal definitions of reasonable accommodation and undue hardship have evolved over time due to case law resulting from judicial decisions. This paper will review recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and their effect on employer responsibilities under the ADA. Suggestions will be provided as to policies organizations could follow to respond to these requirements.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990. This article reviews and summarizes the impact of the ADA on the public sector, and discusses two key concepts of the law, “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship.” These two concepts impact all management functions, including personnel management, and are the most troublesome of the Act to interpret and apply.

The duty to accommodate is a fundamental legal concept embedded in Canadian human rights law. The concept itself makes a contribution to advancing the goals of human rights law by attempting to extend the right to equality by protecting people from discrimination. In post-secondary institutions, pursuant to human rights legislation, the duty to accommodate requires that educators and administrators should attempt to accommodate students with disabilities short of undue hardship. Despite these legal requirements, students with disabilities are often underrepresented in STEM (science, technology, mathematics and engineering) disciplines because they face multiple barriers to accessing reasonable accommodation within the classroom and laboratory environments in Canadian universities (Sukhai and Mohler, 2017, Sukhai et al, 2014).

Effective July 22, 1992, the Americans with Disabilities Act, in conjunction with the Rehabilitation Act, will prohibit virtually all public employers from employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Compliance with these statutes requires employers to make modifications —called “reasonable accommodations”—which permit individuals with disabilities to perform the “essential functions” of the position they hold or seek. The Article examines issues on which there is little literature: when, and to what extent, do these statutes require an employer to modify the job or the workplace to accommodate an individual with a disability? Resolution of these questions requires consideration of three additional, interrelated questions. First, what are the “essential functions” of a position? Second, are there accommodations which would permit the individual to perform its essential functions? Third, would the proposed accommodations impose an “undue hardship” on the employer?

A recent request for religious accommodationat York University has generated controversynot just about the merits of the particular claimbut also about the general practice of religiousaccommodation under human rights codes andthe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Iwill argue that the York case highlights the difficulty in treating religion as a ground of discriminationand more generally in fi tting religioninto an equality rights framework. Th isdiffi culty stems from the complex character ofreligious adherence, which can be viewed as botha personal commitment to a set of claims abouttruth and right and as a cultural identity that isexpressed in shared spiritual practices. Whenreligion is viewed as a cultural identity, it seemsright that it be accommodated, unless this wouldcause “undue hardship” to others. Yet when it isviewed as a set of beliefs about right and truth,particularly when those beliefs are inconsistentwith public values, it is not clear why it ought tobe accommodated.

Non-native English speaking (NNES) scholars face great hardship when they attempt to publish in English. Upon submitting their manuscripts to English-language journals, these scholars usually receive comments from the reviewers criticizing the rhetorical structures they adopt. One of these criticisms is concerned with how they manage the relationship between the author and the potential addressee; that is, the scholars’ expression of their attitude and the way they adjust the certainty of their claims and establish a relationship with their readers. This study attempted to examine how the acceptably revised manuscripts written by Iranian scholars differ from the originally submitted versions regarding the changes happening to the Engagement system of the texts. Findings showed Iranian scholars’ inadequate knowledge of the interpersonal weightings of the lexico-grammatical structures they used —hence giving undue credit to other researchers in the field— was mitigated by giving more space to the feature of distance citations, thereby failing to achieve a typically sound and rigorous argumentation.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is widely regarded as one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in American history. Among its requirements, Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against people with disabilities and requires that employers make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals. Many questions about the scope of the reasonable-accommodation mandate remain, however, as federal circuit courts disagree over whether extended medical leave may be considered a reasonable accommodation and whether an employee on leave is a qualified individual. This Note argues that courts should presume finite unpaid medical leaves of absence are a reasonable accommodation under certain circumstances and shift the focus of judicial inquiry to the employer’s burden of showing undue hardship. Creating a presumption for medical leave is consistent with the text and purpose of the ADA, aligns with Supreme Court case law, and serves as a better framework for balancing competing policy concerns compared to existing approaches.

AbstractCarbon emissions—and hence fossil fuel combustion—must decline rapidly if warming is to be held below 1.5 or 2 °C. Yet fossil fuels are so deeply entrenched in the broader economy that a rapid transition poses the challenge of significant transitional disruption. Fossil fuels must be phased out even as access to energy services for basic needs and for economic development expands, particularly in developing countries. Nations, communities, and workers that are economically dependent on fossil fuel extraction will need to find a new foundation for livelihoods and revenue. These challenges are surmountable. In principle, societies could undertake a decarbonization transition in which they anticipate the transitional disruption, and cooperate and contribute fairly to minimize and alleviate it. Indeed, if societies do not work to avoid that disruption, a decarbonization transition may not be possible at all. Too many people may conclude they will suffer undue hardship, and thus undermine the political consensus required to undertake an ambitious transition. The principles and framework laid out here are offered as a contribution to understanding the nature of the potential impacts of a transition, principles for equitably sharing the costs of avoiding them, and guidance for prioritizing which fossil resources can still be extracted.

ABSTRACT The Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund (SOPF) had its origins in amendments to the Canada Shipping Act passed in 1971. At that time, there was no legal right compensation available to recover the costs and expenses incurred as a result of two oil spill incidents on Canada's east coast. These amendments established the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund (MPCF), which was financed by a levy on every ton of oil imported or exported from Canada. Operational experience dictated further legislative changes in 1987. To strengthen Canada's legal regime in pollution cases, the oil MPCF was transformed into the SOPF, and Canada acceded to the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 International Fund Convention. An additional level of compensation over that of the conventions, to a current maximum of Can$105.5 million per incident, was provided. The SOPF also meets claims not covered by the conventions, such as mystery spills, damage caused by ships other than laden tankers and claims beyond the territorial sea but in Canada's fishing zones. Speedy recourse is provided to fishermen so that they do not suffer undue hardship. A unique feature of the SOPF is that Canada's contributions to the International Fund are made directly by the SOPF and not by the individual oil companies. As of April 1990, the balance in the fund was some Can$164 million.

Specific performance is a primary remedy for breach of contract available for the aggrieved party. This order emphasises the performance of contractual obligations. Although the plaintiff can elect to claim specific performance from the defendant, the court has a discretion to grant or decline the order of specific performance. The discretion must be exercised judicially and does not confine on rigid rules. Courts decide each case according to its own facts and circumstances. Plaintiff has a right of election whether to claim specific performance from the defendant or damages for breach of contract. The defendant does not enjoy any choice in this matter. As a general rule, specific performance is not often awarded in the contract of services. However, recent developments have demonstrated that specific performance will usually be granted in employment contracts if there is equality of bargaining power among contracting parties and such order will not produce undue hardship to the defaulting party. Public policy generally favours the utmost freedom of contract and requires that parties should respect or honour their contractual obligations in commercial transactions. Public policy is rooted in the constitution and can sparingly be used to strike down contracts. Specific performance should not continue to be a primary remedy for breach of contract. Contracting parties should be allowed to resile from the contract and use damages as a remedy for breach of contract.

In 1926, the landmark Lategan case was the first case to determine the meaning of the words “accrued to or in favour of” in the definition of gross income as defined in section 1 of the Income Tax Act. According to the decision in that case, income generally accrues to a person when that person is entitled to an amount (the timing rule), but the amount to which the taxpayer is entitled to must be valued to determine the value of the accrual to be included in gross income. The valuation of the accrual is determined by discounting the accrual to its present value at year end (and not the face value). The valuation part of the judgment was legislatively nullified in 1990 with retrospective effect to 1962, and the face value of the amount to which the taxpayer is entitled is the amount that has accrued. The timing rule violates both the canons of equity and of convenience. The timing rule also causes undue hardship to taxpayers by taxing amounts before they have been received. It is submitted that it may be time to test the timing rule constitutionally. It is also submitted that the valuation rule would pass constitutional muster. However, as far as the retrospective legislative amendments in respect of the valuation of the accrual are concerned, it is further submitted that there is little chance of successfully challenging such legislative amendments

Abstract Involuntary nursing home closures happens infrequently, but when they do occur, they impact residents, their family, and facility staff. During the transition, residents’ care needs are of primary concern, yet few studies have examined the centrality of the actions of staff to residents’ relocation adjustment. This paper examined staff perceptions of the involuntary relocation process for 132 residents after a facility lost its Medicaid certification because of low quality performance. Interviews were conducted with 34 staff (e.g., administrators, nurses, social workers) from 21 receiving facilities. Using content analysis, we identified challenges that hindered relocation and affected resident/family experiences. Receiving facility staff perceived undue distress and hardship on residents and family members because of inadequate notification about the situation. Limited, untimely, and poor communication led to residents being uninformed or unprepared for moving. The efficiency and effectiveness of the resident discharge process was also viewed as unacceptable. Minimal documentation in residents’ charts hampered the coordination of resident moves. Receiving facility staff offered recommendations for decertified facilities and receiving facilities to improve the relocation experience including the need for open communication, thoughtful and early engagement in the process, and transparent and timely interactions. Findings suggest that staff are well-positioned for active involvement in the relocation process and should facilitate deliberate and strategic planning, decision-making, and communication with residents and their relatives. Resident-centered policies are needed to improve the involuntary relocation process and give voice to remaining/receiving staff, both of whom are integral to residents’ support system.

The Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e, et seq., as amended (“Title VII”), prohibits employers with at least 15 employees (including private sector, state, and local government employers), as well as employment agencies, unions, and federal government agencies, from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain of discrimination or participate in an Equal Employment Opportunity investigation. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination and it has intervened by the federal body to prevent religious discrimination by corporations which seem to be breaching the law by discriminating against their employees. In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch 575 U.S. ____ (2015), the US Supreme Court held that a religious practice of an employee should be accommodated if it does not cause “undue hardship.” The Court then formulated the principle that applicant does not have to show that the employer had “actual knowledge” of the applicant’s need for accommodation. Instead, the Court held that “an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.” This has given the scope to a Chapter VII definition that stops short of strict liability but binds the employer to facilitate the employee where religious symbols are concerned. This article reviews the recent case law on discrimination in the work place and the disparate treatment test interpreted by the Supreme Court in the framework of employment law for religious employees and argues that the employer’s actual knowledge requirement depends upon the circumstances of each case.

Background: Equity has emerged as a cross-cutting theme in the health sector, and countries across the world are striving to ensure that all people have access to the health services they need without undue financial hardship and educational, social, cultural and geographical barriers. In this context, this analysis has attempted to analyse Nepal’s progress in reducing inequalities in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health services based on economic status and place of residence.Methods: In this analysis, we have used data available from the web version of the Health Equity Assessment Toolkit, a data visualisation tool developed by the World Health Organisation. We have analysed the inequalities in terms of a composite coverage index which combines eight reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health interventions along the continuum of care.Results: Composite coverage of reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health services was 43% in 2001 which increased to 65% in 2016. The absolute difference in composite coverage of the services between the lowest and highest wealth quintiles decreased from 28-percentage points in 2001 to 8-percentage points in 2016. The difference in service coverage between the urban and rural settings reduced from 21-percentage points to six percentage points in the period. Among the eight various services, births attended by skilled birth attendants is the indicator with the highest scope for improvement. Conclusions: Inequalities based on wealth quintiles and residence places have narrowed from 2001 to 2016. Additional efforts in expanding skilled birth attendants and antenatal care service coverage among the poorest quintile and rural residents could further improve the coverage of the indicators at the national level and narrow down the inequalities.Keywords: Health services; inequality; maternal; Nepal; newborn and child health; reproductive health

Introduction. In China, urban police tend to arrest and interrogate internal migrants when crimes occur, as they believe migrant cohorts are the main cause of crime. Detecting risk factors in migrant children's delinquency is necessary in order to allow authorities to limit the scope of crime. Methods. This essay explores studies from Chicago School of Criminology, in additional to other relevant western criminological literature. This essay investigates how poor living conditions, undue levels of fear of crime, deficiency in the formation of social bonds, lack of informal control at home and school, and development of social strain are associated with migrant children's delinquency in China. Findings. Socioeconomic challenges drive migrant children to delinquency. Migrant children are subject to discrimination and exclusion at school and public spaces, in addition to segregation residentially. The unfair treatment they receive contributes to their inability to develop a metropolitan social bonds and trust. Similarly, migrant parents are victimised by social discrimination, exploitation and exclusion, minimising their opportunities to exercise positive parenting. Their economic hardships impede migrant cohorts from alleviating poverty and increasing community engagement. Local urbanites' fear of crime against migrant cohorts fosters mutual misunderstanding, mistrust and conflicts. Social tension and fear of crime reinforce local urban residents' segregation and discrimination against internal migrants. Conclusions. Migrant children may demonstrate a higher propensity of delinquency than local counterparts. However, more attention should be given to their victimisation as a result of economic hardships and social inequalities, in order to effectively exercise crime control in Chinese cities.

Good governance requires the accommodation of multiple interests in the cause of decision-making. However, undue regard for particular sectional interests can take its toll upon public faith in government administration. Historically, broad conceptions of the good of the commonwealth were employed to outweigh the interests of groups that resisted colonisation. In the decision-making of the British Empire, the standard approach for justifying the marginalisation of the interests of colonised groups was that they were uncivilised and that particular hardships were the price to be paid for bringing to them the imperial dividend of industrial society. It is widely assumed that with the dismantling of the British Empire, such impulses and their accompanying jurisprudence became a thing of the past. Even as decolonisation proceeded apace after the Second World War, however, the UK maintained control of strategically important islands with a view towards sustaining its global role. In an infamous example from this twilight period of empire, in the 1960s imperial interests were used to justify the expulsion of the Chagos islanders from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Into the twenty-first century, this forced elision of the UK’s interests with the imperial ‘common good’ continues to take centre stage in courtroom battles over the islanders’ rights, being cited before domestic and international tribunals in order to maintain the Chagossians’ exclusion from their homeland. This article considers the new jurisprudence of imperialism which has emerged in a string of decisions which have continued to marginalise the Chagossians’ interests.

e19062 Background: Ethnic/racial minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients remain underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCT), challenging the accuracy and generalizability of findings. While oncologists’ recommendations influence trial participation, we know little about their perspectives on recommending CCT to underrepresented patients. Methods: From 9/16-5/19 we conducted a sequential mixed methods study to assess oncologists’ attitudes toward recommending underrepresented patients for CCT. We performed individual interviews with 17 oncologists, developed a survey instrument, and surveyed a randomly selected sample of 98 oncologists (from ASCO, NCORP, MGH; RR = 31.2%). Descriptive statistics summarized attitudes, practices and challenges with trial enrollment of underrepresented patients. Results: Content analysis of interviews (age = 46.9, female = 37.5%, white = 75.0%) revealed overall support for CCT. Indeed, 84.4% of survey respondents (age = 53.3, female = 31.3%, white = 78.6%) considered CCT as central to their professional identity. Yet, 37.5% agreed CCT placed undue burden on oncologists. Oncologists’ concerns around informed consent and perceived lack of clinical/personal equipoise discouraged recommending CCT participation to vulnerable patients. Interviews revealed that nearly all believed that patients with certain vulnerabilities (e.g., literacy, social, financial barriers) had needs that conflicted with CCT demands, increasing the potential for harm. Oncologists were less likely to recommend CCT to patients who do not reliably report side effects (91.2%), demonstrate difficulty comprehending the costs/benefits of CCT (88.7%), lack support (87.6%), live far away (76.3%), or face insurance obstacles (73.2%). Notably, 67.7% affirmed they presented trials with varying enthusiasm based on perceived patient challenges; 32.4% deemed it hard to justify enrolling patients if efficacious standard treatment options exist outside of trials. Oncologists desired navigation support (63.3%) to offset concerns and facilitate trial discussion/enrollment. Conclusions: Findings confirm that oncologists value CCT; however, they experience conflict when considering CCT for patients with pre-existing hardships. Time constraints interfere with oncologists’ ability to adequately address and overcome perceived challenges to participation. Our findings underscore the need for programs that integrate informational support with patient navigation to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients into CCT.

Imagine John Smith, soon to be John Smith, Esquire. He has completed his last round of finals and is anxiously awaiting graduation from law school. In the time between finals and graduation, when many third-year law students are taking a brief mental vacation before bar exam preparation gets into full swing, John thinks he has found the ultimate loophole. John files a bankruptcy petition, which shows his non-existent current income, minimal assets, and education loans totaling over $100,000. Given John’s apparent insolvency, the court discharges his student loans so that John can have a fresh start and attempt to get back on his feet. John is pleased because he has a great job lined up for after graduation, and getting rid of this debt will make his life better. Luckily for the taxpayers who would then be responsible for John’s federally guaranteed student loans, Congress essentially eliminated such a possibility decades ago, and college students across the country can rest easy knowing that their loans will be fully intact upon graduation.

On 20 March 2002, the XIIth Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH - Federal Court of Justice), the highest appeal court in civil law matters, was called to decide a case in which a separated husband had made an application to change a periodical maintenance payment order, arguing mainly that his wife no longer living with him had a close relationship with another man and that it was therefore an undue hardship to him, in the sense of para. 1597 no. 7 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB - German Civil Code), to continue periodical maintenance payments at all. The separated wife argued that she did not cohabit with the man and had no intimate sexual relationship with him, since he was homosexual, that therefore no marriage-like relationship existed and maintenance payments should continue unchanged, since this obligation was no undue hardship towards the obliged spouse. The Federal Court of Justice judged in the last instance that the decision of the lower court, which had reduced the maintenance obligation, was correct, since the facts showed that a marriage-like relationship between the separated wife and her close friend existed; whether or not they had intimate sexual relations did not matter.

Qualified employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The demanding nature of the teaching profession presents a particularly challenging context for accommodations; therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine litigation on accommodating teachers with disabilities. Authors searched Lexis+ to identify case law on accommodations claims by teachers with disabilities. Results indicated plaintiffs were primarily female. Depression represented the most common disability, followed by respiratory issues, and post-traumatic stress disorders. Accommodation claims were adjudicated under the broad categories of failure to meet the essential functions of the position, failure to engage in the interactive process, and undue hardship. Implications for research and practice are also discussed.

The holy month of Ramadan is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar wherein Muslims all over the world observe daylight fasting as one of the five pillars of the Islamic faith. As per a recent estimate, there are 1.8–2 billion Muslims worldwide, comprising 18–25% of the world population. Fasting during the month of Ramadan is an obligatory duty for all healthy, adult Muslims, although there are exemptions for people with serious medical conditions, like those with diabetes. Fasting is not meant to create an undue hardship on the Muslim individual. The Quran particularly exempts the sick from the duty of fasting (Holy Quran, Al-Bakarah, 183– 185), especially if there is a potential to the individual because of fasting. Nevertheless, many patients with diabetes mellitus insist on fasting during Ramadan, thereby creating a medical challenge for themselves and their physicians.

Abstract Background ORAMMA is a European capacity-building project (GR, NL, UK) for pregnant migrant, asylum-seeking and refugee (MAR) women to improve maternal and newborn outcomes. ORAMMA is an operational and strategic approach for mother-centred, community-oriented, gender-sensitive, interdisciplinary and compassionate care, to meet the needs of MAR women in Europe. Objectives ORAMMA developed training for midwives and other primary health and social care (PC) professionals to meet the needs of MAR women. Methodology comprised three phases: evidence synthesis and needs assessment, training material development, and community enablement through locally recruited women in the innovative role of Maternal Peer Supporters (MPSs). Results Needs assessment highlighted the need to train ORAMMA’s teams of midwives and other PC professionals to care for women who suffered undue hardship, oftentimes leading to PTSD, i.e., victims of trafficking, rape, underage women, sufferers of acute or chronic conditions, and sole family carers. The experiences encountered informed curriculum development for midwives and other PC professionals. Interprofessional training for integrated perinatal care delivery was developed for and delivered in three phases, i.e., detection of pregnancy (GP coordination), care during pregnancy (midwive coordination), and support after birth (social worker coordination), with special modules developed in a participatory manner on: migration status and policies, maternity care for MAR women, and communication and culturally sensitive practices. Conclusions Training midwives and other PC professionals along with members of MAR communities in the MPS role was identified to be a key element to efficiently support women and their families, to propagate key perinatal and public health messages, and to advocate for the rights of MAR women to ensure access equity to quality care in a highly responsive manner. ORAMMA’s tools are available in easily accessible platform online. Key messages ORAMMA developed multilingual material to meet the needs of PC professionals and of MAR women, in an innovative manner and with high relevance for cross-border knowledge transfer. ORAMMA addressed key aspects in delivery and access, focusing on cultural awareness and communication; its relevance extends well beyond perinatal care to improved family outcomes and public health.

What do people know about racial disparities in “The American Dream”? Across six studies ( N = 1,761), we find that American participants consistently underestimate the Black–White disparity in economic mobility, believing that poor Black Americans are significantly more likely to move up the economic ladder than they actually are. We find that misperceptions about economic mobility are common among both White and Black respondents, and that this undue optimism about the prospect of mobility for Black Americans results from a narrow focus on the progress toward equality that has already been made. Consequently, making economic racial disparities salient, or merely reflecting on the unique hardships that Black Americans face in the United States, calibrates beliefs about economic mobility. We discuss the importance of these findings for understanding lay beliefs about the socioeconomic system, the denial of systemic racism in society, and support for policies aimed at reducing racial economic disparities.

Introduction As social-distancing mandates in response to COVID-19 restricted in-person data collection methods such as participant observation and interviews, researchers turned to socially distant methods such as interviewing via video-conferencing technology (Lobe et al.). These were not new tools nor methods, but the pandemic muted any bias towards face-to-face data collection methods. Exemplified in crowd-sourced documents such as Doing Fieldwork in a Pandemic, researchers were encouraged to pivot to digital methods as a means of fulfilling research objectives, “specifically, ideas for avoiding in-person interactions by using mediated forms that will achieve similar ends” (Lupton). The benefits of digital methods for expanding participant cohorts and scope of research have been touted long before 2020 and COVID-19, and, as noted by Murthy, are “compelling” (“Emergent” 172). Research conducted by digital methods can expect to reap benefits such as “global datasets/respondents” and “new modalities for involving respondents” (Murthy, “Emergent” 172). The pivot to digital methods is not in and of itself an issue. What concerns us is that in the dialogues about shifting to digital methods during COVID-19, there does not yet appear to have been a critical consideration of how participant samples and collected data will be impacted upon or skewed towards recording the experiences of advantaged cohorts. Existing literature focusses on the time-saving benefits for the researcher, reduction of travel costs (Fujii), the minimal costs for users of specific platforms – e.g. Skype –, and presumes ubiquity of device access for participants (Cater). We found no discussion on data costs of accessing such services being potential barriers to participation in research, although Deakin and Wakefield did share our concern that: Online interviews may ... mean that some participants are excluded due to the need to have technological competence required to participate, obtain software and to maintain Internet connection for the duration of the discussion. In this sense, access to certain groups may be a problem and may lead to issues of representativeness. (605) We write this as a provocation to our colleagues conducting research at this time to consider the cultural and material capital of their participants and how that capital enables them to participate in digitally-mediated data gathering practices, or not, and to what extent. Despite highlighting the potential benefits of digital methods within a methodological tool kit, Murthy previously cautioned against the implications posed by digital exclusion, noting that “the drawback of these research options is that membership of these communities is inherently restricted to the digital ‘haves’ ... rather than the ‘have nots’” (“Digital” 845). In this article, we argue that while tools such as Zoom have indeed enabled fieldwork to continue despite COVID disruptions, this shift to online platforms has important and under-acknowledged implications for who is and is not able to participate in research. In making this argument, we draw on examples from the Connected Students project, a study of digital inclusion that commenced just as COVID-19 restrictions came into effect in the Australian state of Victoria at the start of 2020. We draw on the experiences of these households to illustrate the barriers that such cohorts face when participating in online research. We begin by providing details about the Connected Students project and then contextualising it through a discussion of research on digital inclusion. We then outline three areas in which households would have experienced (or still do experience) difficulties participating in online research: data, devices, and skills. We use these findings to highlight the barriers that disadvantaged groups may face when engaging in data collection activities over Zoom and question how this is impacting on who is and is not being included in research during COVID-19. The Connected Students Program The Connected Students program was conducted in Shepparton, a regional city located 180km north of Melbourne. The town itself has a population of around 30,000, while the Greater Shepparton region comprises around 64,000 residents. Shepparton was chosen as the program’s site because it is characterised by a unique combination of low-income and low levels of digital inclusion. First, Shepparton ranks in the lowest interval for the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) and the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD), as reported in 2016 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Census”; Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Index”). Although Shepparton has a strong agricultural and horticultural industry with a number of food-based manufacturing companies in the area, including fruit canneries, dairies, and food processing plants, the town has high levels of long-term and intergenerational unemployment and jobless families. Second, Shepparton is in a regional area that ranks in the lowest interval for the Australian Digital Inclusion Index (Thomas et al.), which measures digital inclusion across dimensions of access, ability, and affordability. Funded by Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications provider, and delivered in partnership with Greater Shepparton Secondary College (GSSC), the Connected Students program provided low-income households with a laptop and an unlimited broadband Internet connection for up to two years. Households were recruited to the project via GSSC. To be eligible, households needed to hold a health care card and have at least one child attending the school in year 10, 11, or 12. Both the student and a caregiver were required to participate in the project to be eligible. Additional household members were invited to take part in the research, but were not required to. (See Kennedy & Holcombe-James; and Kennedy et al., "Connected Students", for further details regarding household demographics.) The Australian Digital Inclusion Index identifies that affordability is a significant barrier to digital inclusion in Australia (Thomas et al.). The project’s objective was to measure how removing affordability barriers to accessing connectivity for households impacts on digital inclusion. By providing participating households with a free unlimited broadband internet connection for the duration of the research, the project removed the costs associated with digital access. Access alone is not enough to resolve the digital exclusion confronted by these low-income households. Digital exclusion in these instances is not derived simply from the cost of Internet access, but from the cost of digital devices. As a result, these households typically lacked sufficient digital devices. Each household was therefore provided both a high speed Internet connection, and a brand new laptop with built-in camera, microphone, and speakers (a standard tool kit for video conferencing). Data collection for the Connected Students project was intended to be conducted face-to-face. We had planned in-person observations including semi-structured interviews with household members conducted at three intervals throughout the project’s duration (beginning, middle, and end), and technology tours of each home to spatially and socially map device locations and uses (Kennedy et al., Digital Domesticity). As we readied to make our first research trip to commence the study, COVID-19 was wreaking havoc. It quickly became apparent we would not be travelling to work, much less travelling around the state. We thus pivoted to digital methods, with all our data collection shifting online to interviews conducted via digital platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams. While the pivot to digital methods saved travel hours, allowing us to scale up the number of households we planned to interview, it also demonstrated unexpected aspects of our participants’ lived experiences of digital exclusion. In this article, we draw on our first round of interviews which were conducted with 35 households over Zoom or Microsoft Teams during lockdown. The practice of conducting these interviews reveals insights into the barriers that households faced to digital research participation. In describing these experiences, we use pseudonyms for individual participants and refer to households using the pseudonym for the student participant from that household. Why Does Digital Inclusion Matter? Digital inclusion is broadly defined as universal access to the technologies necessary to participate in social and civic life (Helsper; Livingstone and Helsper). Although recent years have seen an increase in the number of connected households and devices (Thomas et al., “2020”), digital inclusion remains uneven. As elsewhere, digital disadvantage in the Australian context falls along geographic and socioeconomic lines (Alam and Imran; Atkinson et al.; Blanchard et al.; Rennie et al.). Digitally excluded population groups typically experience some combination of education, employment, income, social, and mental health hardship; their predicament is compounded by a myriad of important services moving online, from utility payments, to social services, to job seeking platforms (Australian Council of Social Service; Chen; Commonwealth Ombudsman). In addition to challenges in using essential services, digitally excluded Australians also miss out on the social and cultural benefits of Internet use (Ragnedda and Ruiu). Digital inclusion – and the affordability of digital access – should thus be a key concern for researchers looking to apply online methods. Households in the lowest income quintile spend 6.2% of their disposable income on telecommunications services, almost three times more than wealthier households (Ogle). Those in the lowest income quintile pay a “poverty premium” for their data, almost five times more per unit of data than those in the highest income quintile (Ogle and Musolino). As evidenced by the Australian Digital Inclusion Index, this is driven in part by a higher reliance on mobile-only access (Thomas et al., “2020”). Low-income households are more likely to access critical education, business, and government services through mobile data rather than fixed broadband data (Thomas et al., “2020”). For low-income households, digital participation is the top expense after housing, food, and transport, and is higher than domestic energy costs (Ogle). In the pursuit of responsible and ethical research, we caution against assuming research participants are able to bear the brunt of access costs in terms of having a suitable device, expending their own data resources, and having adequate skills to be able to complete the activity without undue stress. We draw examples from the Connected Students project to support this argument below. Findings: Barriers to Research Participation for Digitally Excluded Households If the Connected Students program had not provided participating households with a technology kit, their preexisting conditions of digital exclusion would have limited their research participation in three key ways. First, households with limited Internet access (particularly those reliant on mobile-only connectivity, and who have a few gigabytes of data per month) would have struggled to provide the data needed for video conferencing. Second, households would have struggled to participate due to a lack of adequate devices. Third, and critically, although the Connected Students technology kit provided households with the data and devices required to participate in the digital ethnography, this did not necessarily resolve the skills gaps that our households confronted. Data Prior to receiving the Connected Students technology kit, many households in our sample had limited modes of connectivity and access to data. For households with comparatively less or lower quality access to data, digital participation – whether for the research discussed here, or in contemporary life – came with very real costs. This was especially the case for households that did not have a home Internet connection and instead relied solely on mobile data. For these households, who carefully managed their data to avoid running out, participating in research through extended video conferences would have been impossible unless adequate financial reimbursement was offered. Households with very limited Internet access used a range of practices to manage and extend their data access by shifting internet costs away from the household budget. This often involved making use of free public Wi-Fi or library internet services. Ellie’s household, for instance, spent their weekends at the public library so that she and her sister could complete their homework. While laborious, these strategies worked well for the families in everyday life. However, they would have been highly unsuitable for participating in research, particularly during the pandemic. On the most obvious level, the expectations of library use – if not silent, then certainly quiet – would have prohibited a successful interview. Further, during COVID-19 lockdowns, public libraries (and other places that provide public Internet) became inaccessible for significant periods of time. Lastly, for some research designs, the location of participants is important even when participation is occurring online. In the case of our own project, the house itself as the site of the interview was critical as our research sought to understand how the layout and materiality of the home impacts on experiences of digital inclusion. We asked participants to guide us around their home, showing where technologies and social activities are colocated. In using the data provided by the Connected Students technology kit, households with limited Internet were able to conduct interviews within their households. For these families, participating in online research would have been near impossible without the Connected Students Internet. Devices Even with adequate Internet connections, many households would have struggled to participate due to a lack of suitable devices. Laptops, which generally provide the best video conferencing experience, were seen as prohibitively expensive for many families. As a result, many families did not have a laptop or were making do with a laptop that was excessively slow, unreliable, and/or had very limited functions. Desktop computers were rare and generally outdated to the extent that they were not able to support video conferencing. One parent, Melissa, described their barely-functioning desktop as “like part of the furniture more than a computer”. Had the Connected Students program not provided a new laptop with video and audio capabilities, participation in video interviews would have been difficult. This is highlighted by the challenges students in these households faced in completing online schooling prior to receiving the Connected Students kit. A participating student, Mallory, for example, explained she had previously not had a laptop, reliant only on her phone and an old iPad: Interviewer: Were you able to do all your homework on those, or was it sometimes tricky?Mallory: Sometimes it was tricky, especially if they wanted to do a call or something ... . Then it got a bit hard because then I would use up all my data, and then didn’t have much left.Interviewer: Yeah. Right.Julia (Parent): ... But as far as schoolwork, it’s hard to do everything on an iPad. A laptop or a computer is obviously easier to manoeuvre around for different things. This example raises several common issues that would likely present barriers to research participation. First, Mallory’s household did not have a laptop before being provided with one through the Connected Students program. Second, while her household did prioritise purchasing tablets and smartphones, which could be used for video conferencing, these were more difficult to navigate for certain tasks and used up mobile data which, as noted above, was often a limited resource. Lastly, it is worth noting that in households which did already own a functioning laptop, it was often shared between several household members. As one parent, Vanessa, noted, “yeah, until we got the [Connected Students] devices, we had one laptop between the four of us that are here. And Noel had the majority use of that because that was his school work took priority”. This lack of individuated access to a device would make participation in some research designs difficult, particularly those that rely on regular access to a suitable device. Skills Despite the Connected Students program’s provision of data and device access, this did not ensure successful research participation. Many households struggled to engage with video research interviews due to insufficient digital skills. While a household with Internet connectivity might be considered on the “right” side of the digital divide, connectivity alone does not ensure participation. People also need to have the knowledge and skills required to use online resources. Brianna’s household, for example, had downloaded Microsoft Teams to their desktop computer in readiness for the interview, but had neglected to consider whether that device had video or audio capabilities. To work around this restriction, the household decided to complete the interview via the Connected Students laptop, but this too proved difficult. Neither Brianna nor her parents were confident in transferring the link to the interview between devices, whether by email or otherwise, requiring the researchers to talk them through the steps required to log on, find, and send the link via email. While Brianna’s household faced digital skills challenges that affected both parent and student participants, in others such as Ariel’s, these challenges were focussed at the parental level. In these instances, the student participant provided a vital resource, helping adults navigate platforms and participate in the research. As Celeste, Ariel’s parent, explained, it's just new things that I get a bit – like, even on here, because your email had come through to me and I said to Ariel "We're going to use your computer with Teams. How do we do this?" So, yeah, worked it out. I just had to look up my email address, but I [initially thought] oh, my god; what am I supposed to do here? Although helpful in our own research given its focus on school-aged young people, this dynamic of parents being helped by their dependents illustrates that the adults in our sample were often unfamiliar with the digital skills required for video conferencing. Research focussing only on adults, or on households in which students have not developed these skills through extended periods of online education such as occurred during the COVID-19 lockdowns, may find participants lacking the digital skills to participate in video interviews. Participation was also impacted upon by participants' lack of more subtle digital skills around the norms and conventions of video conferencing. Several households, for example, conducted their interviews in less ideal situations, such as from both moving and parked cars. A portion of the household interview with Piper’s household was completed as they drove the 30 minutes from their home into Shepperton. Due to living out of town, this household often experienced poor reception. The interview was thus regularly disrupted as they dropped in and out of range, with the interview transcript peppered with interjections such as “we’re going through a bit of an Internet light spot ... we’re back ... sorry ...” (Karina, parent). Finally, Piper switched the device on which they were taking the interview to gain a better connection: “my iPad that we were meeting on has worse Internet than my phone Internet, so we kind of changed it around” (Karina). Choosing to participate in the research from locations other than the home provides evidence of the limited time available to these families, and the onerousness of research participation. These choices also indicate unfamiliarity with video conferencing norms. As digitally excluded households, these participants were likely not the target of popular discussions throughout the pandemic about optimising video conferences through careful consideration of lighting, background, make-up and positioning (e.g. Lasky; Niven-Phillips). This was often identified by how participants positioned themselves in front of the camera, often choosing not to sit squarely within the camera lens. Sometimes this was because several household members were participating and struggled to all sit within view of the single device, but awkward camera positioning also occurred with only one or two people present. A number of interviews were initially conducted with shoulders, or foreheads, or ceilings rather than “whole” participants until we asked them to reposition the device so that the camera was pointing towards their faces. In noting this unfamiliarity we do not seek to criticise or apportion responsibility for accruing such skills to participating households, but rather to highlight the impact this had on the type of conversation between researcher and participant. Such practices offer valuable insight into how digital exclusion impacts on individual’s everyday lives as well as on their research participation. Conclusion Throughout the pandemic, digital methods such as video conferencing have been invaluable for researchers. However, while these methods have enabled fieldwork to continue despite COVID-19 disruptions, the shift to online platforms has important and under-acknowledged implications for who is and is not able to participate in research. In this article, we have drawn on our research with low-income households to demonstrate the barriers that such cohorts experience when participating in online research. Without the technology kits provided as part of our research design, these households would have struggled to participate due to a lack of adequate data and devices. Further, even with the kits provided, households faced additional barriers due to a lack of digital literacy. These experiences raise a number of questions that we encourage researchers to consider when designing methods that avoid in person interactions, and when reviewing studies that use similar approaches: who doesn’t have the technological access needed to participate in digital and online research? What are the implications of this for who and what is most visible in research conducted during the pandemic? Beyond questions of access, to what extent will disadvantaged populations not volunteer to participate in online research because of discomfort or unfamiliarity with digital tools and norms? When low-income participants are included, how can researchers ensure that participation does not unduly burden them by using up precious data resources? And, how can researchers facilitate positive and meaningful participation among those who might be less comfortable interacting through mediums like video conferencing? In raising these questions we acknowledge that not all research will or should be focussed on engaging with disadvantaged cohorts. Rather, our point is that through asking questions such as this, we will be better able to reflect on how data and participant samples are being impacted upon by shifts to digital methods during COVID-19 and beyond. As researchers, we may not always be able to adapt Zoom-based methods to be fully inclusive, but we can acknowledge this as a limitation and keep it in mind when reporting our findings, and later when engaging with the research that was largely conducted online during the pandemic. Lastly, while the Connected Students project focusses on impacts of affordability on digital inclusion, digital disadvantage intersects with many other forms of disadvantage. Thus, while our study focussed specifically on financial disadvantage, our call to be aware of who is and is not able to participate in Zoom-based research applies to digital exclusion more broadly, whatever its cause. Acknowledgements The Connected Students project was funded by Telstra. This research was also supported under the Australian Research Council's Discovery Early Career Researchers Award funding scheme (project number DE200100540). References Alam, Khorshed, and Sophia Imran. “The Digital Divide and Social Inclusion among Refugee Migrants: A Case in Regional Australia.” Information Technology & People 28.2 (2015): 344–65. Atkinson, John, Rosemary Black, and Allan Curtis. “Exploring the Digital Divide in an Australian Regional City: A Case Study of Albury”. Australian Geographer 39.4 (2008): 479–493. Australian Bureau of Statistics. “Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016.” 2016. <https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2033.0.55.001~2016~Main%20Features~SOCIO-ECONOMIC%20INDEXES%20FOR%20AREAS%20(SEIFA)%202016~1>. ———. “Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD).” 2016. <https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2033.0.55.001~2016~Main%20Features~IRSAD~20>. Australian Council of Social Service. “The Future of Parents Next: Submission to Senate Community Affairs Committee.” 8 Feb. 2019. <http://web.archive.org/web/20200612014954/https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ACOSS-submission-into-Parents-Next_FINAL.pdf>. Beer, David. “The Social Power of Algorithms.” Information, Communication & Society 20.1 (2017): 1–13. Blanchard, Michelle, et al. “Rethinking the Digital Divide: Findings from a Study of Marginalised Young People’s Information Communication Technology (ICT) Use.” Youth Studies Australia 27.4 (2008): 35–42. Cater, Janet. “Skype: A Cost Effective Method for Qualitative Research.” Rehabilitation Counselors and Educators Journal 4.2 (2011): 10-17. Chen, Jesse. “Breaking Down Barriers to Digital Government: How Can We Enable Vulnerable Consumers to Have Equal Participation in Digital Government?” Sydney: Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, 2017. <http://web.archive.org/web/20200612015130/https://accan.org.au/Breaking%20Down%20Barriers%20to%20Digital%20Government.pdf>. Commonwealth Ombudsman. “Centrelink’s Automated Debt Raising and Recovery System: Implementation Report, Report No. 012019.” Commonwealth Ombudsman, 2019. <http://web.archive.org/web/20200612015307/https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/98314/April-2019-Centrelinks-Automated-Debt-Raising-and-Recovery-System.pdf>. Deakin Hannah, and Kelly Wakefield. “Skype Interviewing: Reflections of Two PhD Researchers.” Qualitative Research 14.5 (2014): 603-616. Fujii, LeeAnn. Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach. Routledge, 2018. Helsper, Ellen. “Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society.” London: Department for Communities and Local Government, 2008. Kennedy, Jenny, and Indigo Holcombe-James. “Connected Students Milestone Report 1: Project Commencement". Melbourne: RMIT, 2021. <https://apo.org.au/node/312817>. Kennedy, Jenny, et al. “Connected Students Milestone Report 2: Findings from First Round of Interviews". Melbourne: RMIT, 2021. <https://apo.org.au/node/312818>. Kennedy, Jenny, et al. Digital Domesticity: Media, Materiality, and Home Life. Oxford UP, 2020. Lasky, Julie. “How to Look Your Best on a Webcam.” New York Times, 25 Mar. 2020 <http://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/realestate/coronavirus-webcam-appearance.html>. Livingstone, Sonia, and Ellen Helsper. “Gradations in Digital Inclusion: Children, Young People and the Digital Divide.” New Media & Society 9.4 (2007): 671–696. Lobe, Bojana, David L. Morgan, and Kim A. Hoffman. “Qualitative Data Collection in an Era of Social Distancing.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19 (2020): 1–8. Lupton, Deborah. “Doing Fieldwork in a Pandemic (Crowd-Sourced Document).” 2020. <http://docs.google.com/document/d/1clGjGABB2h2qbduTgfqribHmog9B6P0NvMgVuiHZCl8/edit?ts=5e88ae0a#>. Murthy, Dhiraj. “Digital Ethnography: An Examination of the Use of New Technologies for Social Research”. Sociology 42.2 (2008): 837–855. ———. “Emergent Digital Ethnographic Methods for Social Research.” Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research. Ed. Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber. Oxford UP, 2011. 158–179. Niven-Phillips, Lisa. “‘Virtual Meetings Aren’t Going Anywhere Soon’: How to Put Your Best Zoom Face Forward.” The Guardian, 27 Mar. 2021. <http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2021/mar/27/virtual-meetings-arent-going-anywhere-soon-how-to-put-your-best-zoom-face-forward>. Ogle, Greg. “Telecommunications Expenditure in Australia: Fact Sheet.” Sydney: Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, 2017. <https://web.archive.org/web/20200612043803/https://accan.org.au/files/Reports/ACCAN_SACOSS%20Telecommunications%20Expenditure_web_v2.pdf>. Ogle, Greg, and Vanessa Musolino. “Connectivity Costs: Telecommunications Affordability for Low Income Australians.” Sydney: Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, 2016. <https://web.archive.org/web/20200612043944/https://accan.org.au/files/Reports/161011_Connectivity%20Costs_accessible-web.pdf>. Ragnedda, Massimo, and Maria Laura Ruiu. “Social Capital and the Three Levels of Digital Divide.” Theorizing Digital Divides. Eds. Massimo Ragnedda and Glenn Muschert. Routledge, 2017. 21–34. Rennie, Ellie, et al. “At Home on the Outstation: Barriers to Home Internet in Remote Indigenous Communities.” Telecommunications Policy 37.6 (2013): 583–93. Taylor, Linnet. “What Is Data Justice? The Case for Connecting Digital Rights and Freedoms Globally. Big Data & Society 4.2 (2017): 1–14. Thomas, Julian, et al. Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2018. Melbourne: RMIT University, for Telstra, 2018. ———. Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2019. Melbourne: RMIT University and Swinburne University of Technology, for Telstra, 2019. ———. Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2020. Melbourne: RMIT University and Swinburne University of Technology, for Telstra, 2020. Zuboff, Shoshana. “Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization. Journal of Information Technology 30 (2015): 75–89.