Aim/Purpose: Doctoral students with disabilities represent 5 to 10 percent of the graduate student population and, yet, research seldom documents their experiences. We propose a research agenda and methodological approaches that circumvent these limitations, including a substantive focus on universal design to measure graduate program’s awareness of disability, experimental methods to minimize response bias, and ways to redefine disability to improve recruitment of potential research subjects. Background: Research suggests that doctoral students with disabilities face different challenges than undergraduate students with disabilities and that graduate advisers are pivotal to their success. Existing literature has several limitations, including small sample sizes, a reliance on survey and interview data, little attention to issues of diversity within doctoral students with disabilities, and difficulty defining disability. Methodology: This article utilizes a systemic literature review (SLR) in order to describe the current state of both the research and the practice of doctoral students with disabilities. Contribution: This paper defines major gaps in the existing literature and addresses potential ways to address these gaps through research and practice. Findings: There are barriers for doctoral students with disabilities at every level of the process, which is not being addressed or remediated resulting in greater disadvantages and decreased successful outcomes. Recommendations for Practitioners: In this context, practitioners will refer to professionals employed at university disability centers and university faculty. Recommendations include disability awareness and resource training for university faculty and staff. Faculty can maintain open lines of communication with their students and advisees related to disability and accommodations as well as increasing program flexibility. Recommendation for Researchers: Research is critically needed regarding the experiences, needs, and outcomes of doctoral students with disabilities. This research needs to come from both the individuals, faculty, and systemic level of higher education. Impact on Society: Individuals with disabilities are the largest minority group in the United States. However, this population rarely receives the research, funding, services, and social attention paid to other marginalized groups. Future Research: Future research needs to utilize larger scale quantitative studies to obtain reliable data. Longitudinal information would greatly improve the information regarding outcomes for doctoral students with disabilities.

have been multiple changes to the criteria for ASD diagnosis. In 1994, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-4; American Psychiatric Association [APA]) labeled the category of people with ASD and average or above average intellectual abilities as having Asperger syndrome (AS). An AS diagnosis required that individuals demonstrate impairments in social functioning, some type of restricted or repetitive behavior, and normal language development (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Most recently, the DSM-V removed the category of AS entirely (APA, 2013). Individuals who would have previously been diagnosed with AS will now likely fall under the umbrella diagnosis of ASD or to a new DSM-V diagnosis of Social Pragmatic Disorder (APA, 2013). The participants in the current study fall into these described diagnostic categories, with several publicly identifying as an "Aspy" in relation to their previous AS diagnosis. This paper will identify participants as simply being an individual with ASD, rather than using social pragmatic disorder or AS in order to best align with the current diagnostic terminology in the DSM-V.Young adults with ASD who enroll in PSE following high school graduation may face communication, behavioral and social skill challenges. These challenges may contribute to the low postsecondary education rates for individuals with ASD when compared to individuals belonging to other disability categories (Hendricks, 2010;

No abstract

No abstract