Qualitative study reveals differing perceptions of employment barriers, suggesting a supported employment methodology for sustainable practices.
Despite the expansion of regulatory frameworks and employment support programmes, inclusive employment of persons with disabilities remains limited.Existing research provides extensive evidence on individual and institutional barriers to employment; however, considerably less attention has been paid to the misalignment of expectations among key actors involved in the employment process.This study conceptualises the expectation gap between employers and persons with disabilities as an independent mechanism reproducing barriers to employment sustainability.The study adopts a qualitative research design and draws on in-depth interviews with persons with disabilities and employers engaged in inclusive hiring practices, including social enterprises.The findings reveal systematic differences in how employment barriers are interpreted: while persons with disabilities predominantly describe barriers through experiences of stigmatisation, unequal treatment and lack of trust, employers tend to frame the same processes in terms of organisational risks, productivity uncertainty and managerial costs.This divergence contributes to labour market segmentation and constrains transitions to sustainable employment.Based on the empirical findings, the article proposes and substantiates a supported employment methodology grounded in a dual logic of support.Unlike individual-centred approaches, the proposed methodology simultaneously addresses the needs of job seekers and employers' risk perceptions by standardising workplace adaptation procedures, structuring support mechanisms and clarifying the roles of actors across the employment process.The study contributes to the literature by advancing the concept of the expectation gap as an analytical framework for inclusive employment and by offering a practice-oriented, reproducible approach aimed at enhancing employment sustainability for persons with disabilities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Okutayeva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: