Applying the Principles of Universal Design to Make Astronomy More Accessible

Amanda Quirk; Tom Rice

Applying the Principles of Universal Design to Make Astronomy More Accessible

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Applying Universal Design to astronomy—creating multiple, equally valid pathways for representation, engagement, and success—would make the field accessible to disabled astronomers and to everyone else.

desk verdict A sincere, practical advocacy piece that maps Universal Design onto astronomy's professional norms, but it is a policy proposal, not a research result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23498 v1 pith:EINOEWSZ submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.IM

Amanda Quirk , Tom Rice This is my paper

classification astro-ph.IM

keywords UniversalDesignforLearningastronomyaccessibilitydisabilityinclusionmultiplepathwaysdepartmentcultureSTEMcareers

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that astronomy's accessibility problem is not a shortage of accommodations but a set of default norms that exclude disabled people, and that the fix is to design the field's social and organizational structures so that multiple pathways exist from the start. It transplants Universal Design—originally an architectural principle, later adapted for classrooms—into department culture, conferences, outreach, and career evaluation. Along the way it claims the same multiple-pathway changes that help disabled astronomers also help caregivers, commuters, neurodivergent people, and anyone harmed by grind culture. The intended result is a field where access is planned in advance rather than requested through medical documentation.

What carries the argument

The organizing machinery is the Universal Design for Learning framework with its three axes: representation and motivation, engagement, and action and expression. The paper's guiding rule is 'multiple pathways': whenever a norm exists—how data are shown, where events happen, how success is measured—offer more than one equally valid way to participate, and announce the options in advance. The curb cut is the paper's central analogy: a ramp built for wheelchair users that also serves parents with strollers and delivery workers, illustrating the claim that access designed up front is cheaper and broader than access retrofitted later. The framework does the work of converting a general accessibility value into specific questions, such as whether a talk is streamed, whether a department asks visitors about access needs, and whether an astronomer can advance without moving institutions.

What would settle it

A longitudinal comparison of astronomy departments that adopt the paper's multiple-pathway policies across representation, engagement, and evaluation with matched departments that keep traditional accommodation processes would settle the claim: if disabled astronomers' participation, retention, and willingness to disclose do not improve in the first group, the transplant has failed. A narrower check would be tracking whether departments that broaden success metrics actually hire and promote a more diverse set of people.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mindset of Universal Design and the principles of Universal Design for Learning can be applied to astronomy as a whole, not just to buildings or curricula. The paper proposes that every astronomy norm be re-examined along three axes—representation and motivation, engagement, and action and expression—and that each norm be rebuilt to offer multiple equally valid pathways. Examples include sonifying data so it does not depend on sight, treating hybrid participation as a standard option, making conference networking optional without career penalty, and evaluating success by contributions beyond publication count. The authors are explicit that no policy can be perfectly accessible to everyone and that accommodations will remain necessary; the goal is to shrink how often they are needed and to make requesting them safe. They further argue that because the current accommodation system routes through medical and HR systems that have historically harmed BIPOC people, implementing UD is itself an anti-racist practice.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Universal Design, developed for physical spaces and classroom curricula, can be transplanted to social and organizational structures such as department culture, conferences, and career advancement while still removing barriers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Departments that take the framework seriously would routinely offer hybrid participation, record and stream talks, provide microphones, and ask visitors and job candidates about access needs before arrival.
Astronomy data products would include sonified and tactile representations beside images, letting blind and low-vision researchers analyze data directly and giving sighted researchers a new way to notice patterns.
Conferences would make social networking optional, provide structured alternatives for connection, and stop treating after-hours events as the real place where collaboration begins.
Career evaluation would broaden from publication counts to include outreach, software, service, null-result research notes, and personal circumstances, which would weaken grind culture.
Institutions would rely less on individual accommodation requests and medical documentation, lowering barriers for disabled people who have reason to distrust medical or HR systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the paper's own caveat that needs can conflict (for example, some attendees benefit from masking requirements while others need lip-reading access) implies that 'multiple pathways' needs a practical prioritization rule; the paper does not supply one.
Editorial inference: if the framework transfers successfully, a testable prediction follows—departments that adopt multiple-pathway policies should show measurable gains in disabled astronomers' retention, disclosure, and participation relative to departments that keep traditional accommodation processes.
Editorial inference: the anti-racist framing implies that accessibility planning and racial-equity planning should be merged rather than run as parallel efforts, since the accommodation system's harms concentrate at the intersection of disability and race.
Editorial inference: the paper states it is grounded in the authors' lived experience and is not an exhaustive treatment, so the recommendations are best read as an experience-based agenda for change rather than a demonstrated intervention.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a read if you deal with accessibility in astronomy. The paper does not produce data or a testable model; it is an advocacy/position piece. What is genuinely useful: it takes the UD/UDL framework seriously and maps it onto specific astronomy norms — the expectation to network, the constant moving between institutions, image-only data representation, and paper-count evaluation of success. The summary table and the Appendix checklists are practical. The authors are also honest about limits: they say needs conflict, accommodations still matter, and their base is lived experience rather than systematic study. The argument is coherent, not sloppy.

The soft spots are the usual ones for this genre. The central move — transplanting UD from architecture and K-12 classrooms to department culture and career advancement — is asserted rather than argued with evidence. Some claims go further than the cited literature supports, e.g., that paper-count hiring practices are 'a tool of white supremacy' or that networking 'is particularly harmful for Autistic and neurodivergent folks' as a categorical statement. These are opinion, stated with the same confidence as the AAS membership data. A referee should ask the authors to flag which statements are lived experience and which are findings. The disability prevalence stats and the ADA discussion are on solid ground. The self-citation (Rice et al. 2024) is a resource link, not load-bearing.

Is it new? The application of UDL to astronomy department culture — not just classrooms — is a reasonable extension, and the checklists appear original. No one reads this expecting a measurement. As a perspective piece for a journal like the Bulletin of the AAS or a conference proceedings, it deserves serious peer review. As a research preprint, it would be desk-rejected for lacking an empirical core, but that would miss its purpose. I would accept it as a position paper and ask for the authors to tighten the causal language. If you are deciding whether to engage, I'd bring it to reading group, but time-box the discussion to 'what do we do differently next semester.'

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that Universal Design (UD), a principle from architecture and education, should be applied broadly to astronomy to make the field more accessible to disabled individuals and, as a side effect, to many others. It proposes creating multiple pathways for participation along three axes—representation/motivation, engagement, and action/expression—and provides concrete examples of current norms that create barriers (e.g., visual-only data products, networking-centric conferences, mobility-based career advancement). The manuscript includes checklists for institutions, conferences, and outreach events (Appendix A), a list of tools (Appendix B), and guidance on ableist language (Appendix C). It explicitly acknowledges that conflicting needs make universal accessibility impossible and that accommodations will still be necessary, framing iterative feedback as essential.

Significance. If the proposal is implemented, it has the potential to shift how astronomy departments, conferences, and outreach are planned, making them more inclusive not only for disabled astronomers but also for caregivers, neurodivergent individuals, and those from underrepresented backgrounds. The paper's strengths are its clear synthesis of UD and UDL principles with intersectionality, its practical and concrete checklists, and its grounding in existing accessibility tools (sonification, tactile models, hybrid participation). It is explicitly an advocacy and conceptual-transfer piece rather than a measured intervention, and its central claim is a normative recommendation. The main risk is that the effectiveness of transplanting educational/architectural UD principles to social and organizational structures is not empirically tested; however, the authors do not overstate evidence and could reasonably argue that an evidence base will follow adoption. The paper is likely to be useful to departments seeking a starting point for accessibility evaluation.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section 1] Several sentences begin with a lowercase letter (e.g., 'we discuss' in the abstract; 'we believe' in Section 2; 'it's best' in the Discussion). This appears to be a typographical artifact rather than a stylistic choice; please correct throughout.
[Section 2.1.1] The reference 'Kimberly 1989' should be 'Crenshaw 1989' (Kimberlé Crenshaw is the author of the cited 1989 article). Please verify and correct the citation format.
[Section 3.1.2] The claim that 'the human brain has an easier time picking up patterns hidden in 2D noise when data is represented tonally (Diaz Merced 2013)' may be too strong; consider softening to something like 'can aid pattern detection in some contexts' and provide a more direct citation if available.
[Section 3.2.2] The statement that networking 'is particularly harmful for Autistic and neurodivergent folks' could be more precisely phrased as 'poses specific challenges' to avoid implying universal harm; the surrounding context already makes the point accurately.
[Appendix A, B, and C] Minor typos: 'T able 1' in the table caption, 'sonfiying' in Appendix B, and 'differently-abled' (which is correctly flagged as problematic elsewhere) appears in Appendix C with a period that reads as a separate entry. Please proofread these sections.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an advocacy perspective with no derivations, fitted parameters, or predictions to reduce to inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is a perspective/advocacy piece. It makes no empirical predictions, fits no parameters, and presents no formal derivation chain. Its central claim is that applying Universal Design principles to astronomy—via multiple pathways along representation, engagement, and action/expression—will improve accessibility. This is a normative proposal, not a falsifiable result derived from equations or data. The UD/UDL framework is imported from external, independently published sources (CAST, Story et al., Capp, Spooner et al.), and the authors explicitly state that the contents rely on lived experience rather than systematic measurement: 'The contents of this paper rely on my perspective, as developed by my lived experiences and interactions.' The only self-citation is Rice et al. (2024), used in Appendix B as a pointer for American Sign Language resources; this is a standard reference, not load-bearing for the central argument. No step in the paper reduces by construction or by self-citation to its own inputs. The paper's limitations are acknowledged directly (needs can conflict, accommodations remain necessary, the range of disability is vast), and the recommendations are offered as guiding questions rather than as validated outcomes. Under the stated criteria, there is no circularity burden to report.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It rests on qualitative axioms about the transferability of UD, the burden of the accommodation system, disability prevalence, and academic norms. These axioms are not empirically tested in the paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Universal Design principles can be transferred from architecture and education to department culture, conferences, outreach, and academia.
The entire proposal depends on the untested assumption that a framework designed for physical spaces and curricula will produce inclusion benefits in social and organizational settings (Section 2).
domain assumption The current accommodation system places an undue burden on disabled individuals.
The paper motivates UD as an improvement over the existing system, but it does not compare alternative approaches or measure the burden (Section 1.1).
domain assumption Existing statistics on disability prevalence among astronomers are reliable.
The paper uses Pold & Ivie (2019) and CDC/WHO data to establish that a substantial fraction of astronomers are disabled, without validating these estimates (Section 1.1).
domain assumption Grind culture and publication-count evaluation are norms that harm disabled people and are linked to white supremacy.
This strong sociological claim is asserted with a single citation to Benjamin (2023) and used as justification for new evaluation pathways (Section 3.3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Applying the Principles of Universal Design to Make Astronomy More Accessible." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EINOEWSZ

@misc{pith2026250523498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Applying the Principles of Universal Design to Make Astronomy More Accessible},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EINOEWSZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23498}
}

read the original abstract

Universal Design (UD), an approach to accessibility that was first conceptualized in architecture to make buildings physically accessible, has since been applied to curriculum design to make classrooms accessible for a larger range of learning needs. In this paper, we illustrate how the concepts of UD are relevant outside of architecture and the creation of curricula by highlighting examples of norms that exist in the field of astronomy that create barriers for disabled folks. we discuss ways the foundations of UD can be applied more generally to department culture, conferences, outreach events, and academia as a whole to make STEM fields more inclusive. In order to implement UD in these sectors, one must create multiple pathways or options for folks to engage with and show their success in astronomy. While UD is critical for disabled folks, it can easily be expanded to include the promotion of people whose backgrounds and/or identities are currently underrepresented or under-supported in STEM. Lastly, we introduce guiding questions and tools for departments and institutions to evaluate the accessibility of their activities and traditions to disabled individuals. In summary, we aim to show the importance of increased accessibility and provide some strategies to make STEM more inclusive to disabled people by using the mindset and principles of UD.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...
[3]

- [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

2021
[4]

2019, in Inclusive Astronomy II

AAS. 2019, in Inclusive Astronomy II. https://outerspace.stsci.edu/display/IA2

work page 2019
[5]

2024, in ArXiv Accessibility Forum

Arxiv. 2024, in ArXiv Accessibility Forum. https://accessibility2024.arxiv.org/schedule

work page 2024
[6]

2023, Beyond Productivity: Embodied, Situated, and (Un) Balanced Faculty Writing Processes, 158

Benjamin, T. 2023, Beyond Productivity: Embodied, Situated, and (Un) Balanced Faculty Writing Processes, 158

work page 2023
[7]

Brown, L. X. Z. 2013, Glossary of Ableist Phrases. https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html

work page 2013
[8]

Burke, A. W. 2018, in Transcultural psychiatry (Routledge), 139--157

work page 2018

Show all 37 references

[9]

Capp, M. J. 2017, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21, 791

2017
[10]

1998, Universal Design Education Project, Center for Applied Special Technologies

CAST. 1998, Universal Design Education Project, Center for Applied Special Technologies. cast.org

1998
[11]

2024, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CDC. 2024, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html

2024
[12]

2002, The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 475

Chakraborty, A., & McKenzie, K. 2002, The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 475

2002
[13]

Diaz Merced, W. L. 2013, PhD thesis, University of Glasgow

2013
[14]

2010, 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Department of Justice

DOJ. 2010, 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Department of Justice

2010
[15]

2018, PhD thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Drummy, E. 2018, PhD thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

2018
[16]

2011, Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 32, 284

Feinberg, E., Silverstein, M., Donahue, S., & Bliss, R. 2011, Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 32, 284

2011
[17]

2015, Journal of Blindness Innovation & Research, 5

Grice, N., Christian, C., Nota, A., & Greenfield, P. 2015, Journal of Blindness Innovation & Research, 5

2015
[18]

2005, The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies, 37

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. 2005, The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies, 37

2005
[19]

1989, in The University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol

Kimberly, C. 1989, in The University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 140, 139

1989
[20]

McCauley, E. J. 2017, American Journal of Public Health, 107, 1977

2017
[21]

2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), 10.17226/26141

National Academies of Sciences, E., Medicine, et al. 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), 10.17226/26141

2021 doi
[22]

M., & Carter-Long, L

Perry, D. M., & Carter-Long, L. 2016, Ruderman Family Foundation

2016
[23]

2019, Workforce Survey of 2018 US AAS Members Summary Results, College Park, MD: AIP Statistical Research Center

Pold, J., & Ivie, R. 2019, Workforce Survey of 2018 US AAS Members Summary Results, College Park, MD: AIP Statistical Research Center. https://aas.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/AAS-Members-Workforce-Survey-final.pdf

2019
[24]

2024, Crip Spacetime (Duke University Press)

Price, M. 2024, Crip Spacetime (Duke University Press)

2024
[25]

Ralabate, P. K. 2011, The ASHA Leader, 16, 14

2011
[26]

2024, Bulletin of the AAS, 56

Rice, T., Wooten, A., Spiecker, B., et al. 2024, Bulletin of the AAS, 56. https://baas.aas.org/pub/2024n9i021

2024
[27]

2012, The New York Times

Rich, M. 2012, The New York Times

2012
[28]

2000, Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 47

Rose, D. 2000, Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 47

2000
[29]

2001, Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 64

---. 2001, Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 64

2001
[30]

SciAccess. 2024. https://sciaccess.org/

2024
[31]

2024, A Broad Survey of Inaccessibility and Solutions In Astronomy for Deaf Participants

Sfarnas, J. 2024, A Broad Survey of Inaccessibility and Solutions In Astronomy for Deaf Participants. https://doi.org/10.18130/htjv-sf93

2024 doi
[32]

N., Harris, A

Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. 2007, Remedial and special education, 28, 108

2007
[33]

F., Mueller, J

Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. 1998

1998
[34]

2015, in Inclusive Astronomy I

STScI. 2015, in Inclusive Astronomy I. https://tiki.aas.org/tiki-index.php?page=Inclusive_Astronomy_The_Nashville_Recommendations

2015
[35]

2024, American Astronomical Society

WGAD. 2024, American Astronomical Society. https://aas.org/comms/wgad

2024
[36]

2024, World Health Organization

WHO. 2024, World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/health-topics/disability#tab=tab_1

2024
[37]

2018, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77, 1113

Yearby, R. 2018, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77, 1113

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

[3] [3]

- [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

2021

[4] [4]

2019, in Inclusive Astronomy II

AAS. 2019, in Inclusive Astronomy II. https://outerspace.stsci.edu/display/IA2

work page 2019

[5] [5]

2024, in ArXiv Accessibility Forum

Arxiv. 2024, in ArXiv Accessibility Forum. https://accessibility2024.arxiv.org/schedule

work page 2024

[6] [6]

2023, Beyond Productivity: Embodied, Situated, and (Un) Balanced Faculty Writing Processes, 158

Benjamin, T. 2023, Beyond Productivity: Embodied, Situated, and (Un) Balanced Faculty Writing Processes, 158

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Brown, L. X. Z. 2013, Glossary of Ableist Phrases. https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Burke, A. W. 2018, in Transcultural psychiatry (Routledge), 139--157

work page 2018