EST, pioneered by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986), presents a comprehensive framework for understanding human behavior and its development within complex and interacting systems. That is, humans are embedded in multiple nested social systems, and their development is based on their interactions with systems that, in turn, influence each other (e. g., Verdugo, 2018). EST was chosen for this study due to its value in explaining intellectual disability and the associated obstacles by considering the complex interplay between individuals and their environments (see Schalock, 2025). By focusing on different environmental levels or systems, from immediate surroundings to broader societal influences, EST offers a comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing diverse obstacles. In addition, by simultaneously considering different levels of influence, this approach avoids reductionist explanations and is sufficiently open to accommodate diverse theoretical traditions without imposing a single disciplinary lens. This theoretical openness helps to mitigate potential disciplinary biases in the researcher and facilitates a more holistic understanding of obstacles as a multi-level, context-dependent process.

Although employing EST as a theoretical framework presents challenges, especially the difficulty of considering multiple factors and their interactions, it can provide valuable insights into the gender gap affecting the employment of women with intellectual disability. This framework offers a means for practitioners to recognize the complex intersections, potentially leading to an improved understanding of discrimination towards women with intellectual disability in the workplace. With this in mind, our main research question is: What are the obstacles in the environment that hinder the integration of women with intellectual disability into integrated employment?

Given the study’s exploratory aims and the limited qualitative research on the intersection between gender and intellectual disability in integrated employment, a qualitative methodology capable of generating theory from participants’ lived experiences is appropriate. Grounded Theory was, therefore, selected due to its suitability in identifying social processes grounded in empirical data. More specifically, the study follows a Straussian and abductive Grounded Theory approach (Corbin and Strauss, 2015), which allows existing theories to be used as sensitizing concepts rather than as a priori explanatory frameworks. In this sense, Ecological Systems Theory was not imposed deductively on the data, but rather it served as an interpretative lens that interacted iteratively with emerging categories. This epistemological positioning is consistent with an abductive logic, in which theoretical concepts and empirical findings inform each other throughout the analytic process.

The present study adopts a Straussian Grounded Theory approach as developed by Corbin and Strauss (2008, 2015). This methodological framework is particularly suitable for exploring social processes and identifying analytically grounded explanations based on participants’ experiences. In line with this approach, data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively, allowing categories to emerge through systematic comparison and progressive refinement.

The analysis followed the core procedures of Straussian Grounded Theory, including constant comparison and progressive category development, ensuring that the resulting analytical structure remained closely grounded in participants’ narratives while allowing for conceptual integration across levels of analysis.

Based on the aforementioned Grounded Theory methodology, we conducted a content analysis of interviews with the assistance of the NVivo software program (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2023) and used the abductive methodological approach. The abductive methodological approach is a strategy that combines elements of both inductive and deductive reasoning. Information provided by participants (inductive) was combined with EST (deductive). The abductive approach allows researchers to generate the best possible explanations or predictions based on the available data, thus bridging the gap between empirical observations and theoretical constructs (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012). This approach is iterative and dynamic, and it involves a continuous interplay between theory and data, which enhances the depth and breadth of the qualitative analysis. That is, the information provided by the participants interrelates with a theoretical approach (EST) that considers the obstacles women encounter in achieving and maintaining suitable integrated employment within their various social systems.

The interview protocol considered social environments where women might face obstacles and meetings where experts in intellectual disability, including a job coach, participated. The job coach’s participation was crucial to adapting the questions and making them more accessible to individuals with intellectual disability. There were no written materials; instead, the job coach explained the meaning of the questions whenever necessary to facilitate understanding. This process allowed us to achieve a valid design with relevant and clear questions. Examples of questions were “Characteristics of families that hinder the employment of women with intellectual disability” and “Difficulties faced by women workers with intellectual disability in their companies”.

For participant recruitment, “Plena inclusión España” (an NGO representing individuals with intellectual disability in Spain) launched a call. In all, 16 participants were interviewed: five experts around intellectual disability (four women and one man); five family members (four women and one man); four women with intellectual disability; and two supervisors of workgroups where at least one member was a woman with intellectual disability. Recruitment stopped when researchers observed theoretical saturation (Guest et al., 2006), and that is when no new themes or insights emerged.

Interviews were semi-structured and lasted an average of 31.63 minutes. They were conducted by video conference using Microsoft Teams as a software tool. The content of the interviews was textually transcribed. Then, based on the guidelines of Corbin and Strauss (2015) and Estrada-Acuña et al. (2021), the content was analyzed in four rounds. First, two researchers (who were also co-authors of the present manuscript) performed multiple readings of the transcripts to familiarize themselves with the content. Second, two researchers implemented a parallel and independent line-by-line coding process, generating numerous descriptive codes that reflected the different aspects addressed. They compared their results, achieving a shared list of codes and categories. Third, both researchers conducted an analysis of the relationships between the codes to group them into predefined categories that were re-analyzed, interview by interview and across interviews, to identify subthemes based on participants’ narratives. Finally, the researchers implemented an ongoing comparison process, identifying patterns in the data and comparing emerging codes to find similarities and differences, achieving a manageable number of categories, evaluating the results according to the original coding structure, and adjusting codes when needed. This process ended when saturation was achieved (new cases did not contribute additional codes).

Two researchers conducted the analyses in parallel and independently, using the NVivo software tool. Furthermore, they followed the principles of Grounded Theory, and so the analysis started with open coding, followed by axial coding, and ended with selective coding. Open coding in the current research means that the researchers read the transcripts line by line and started identifying codes. Then, in the axial coding phase, the researchers grouped these codes into categories or subcategories. Lastly, using the principles of selective coding, the researchers created a central category (“Obstacles to Achieving Integrated Employment for Women with Intellectual Disability”) and a content analysis map. It is important to note that by using the abductive methodological approach, we were able to approach this from two sides: starting from the interview transcripts and coding line by line to create codes, subcategories, categories, and a central category; and vice versa, moving from the central category to the codes. To clarify the coding process, the data hierarchy started with codes, subcategories, and categories. The process ended with the central category.

Consistent with an abductive analytic process, emerging empirical codes were continuously examined in dialogue with sensitizing theoretical concepts. For instance, inductively generated codes related to family overprotection and safety concerns were later interpreted as proximal barriers within the microsystem, which prompted a re-examination of the data to identify links with broader societal norms and institutional practices. This iterative movement between data and theory strengthened the analytical coherence of the emerging categories.

To enhance the trustworthiness of the analysis, several strategies aligned with established qualitative research criteria were applied. Credibility was strengthened through investigator triangulation, as two researchers independently coded the data and discussed discrepancies until a consensus was reached. Dependability was supported by maintaining a transparent and systematic analytic process, including an audit trail of coding decisions throughout the iterative phases of analysis. Finally, confirmability was ensured by grounding interpretations in participants’ verbatim accounts and applying constant comparisons both within and across interviews.

The present study received approval from the Ethics Committee of Research in Humans at the University of the corresponding author (protocol code UV-INV_ETICA-2081059). Participants provided their informed consent, adapted to ensure cognitive accessibility with the support of a job coach when required. Confidentiality was guaranteed, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.

This category consisted of two sub-categories and eight codes that focused on obstacles related to the families of women with intellectual disability.

This second category had five codes. They reflected the societal obstacles in organizations and institutions, beyond families and workplaces, that hinder integrated employment for women with intellectual disability.

This third category included one sub-category and four codes. They referred to obstacles specifically associated with workplaces.

Based on the interview data, it is possible to map the obstacles that arise in each system and the reasons for their persistence. In the case of the family, which is the closest context for women with intellectual disability, fears about what might happen if they enter integrated employment and the resulting overprotection are deeply rooted. This situation probably reflects parents’ natural concern for their children’s well-being, which is heightened when their children have an intellectual disability and are also women. Unfortunately, this concern becomes an obstacle to the integration of women with intellectual disability through integrated employment. A process of categorization often occurs, assigning less capacity to women with intellectual disability. This tendency is accentuated in parents who are older, have limited educational attainment, and live in rural areas. Regarding society in general, stereotypes persist that assign women with intellectual disability to the domestic and private spheres. Efforts to counteract these stereotypes through policies and strategies specifically targeting these women are considered insufficient. Finally, with regard to the workplace, it has been observed that coworkers (particularly men) may feel unable to communicate effectively with women with intellectual disability, which may lead to attitudes of rejection toward them. These negative attitudes are sometimes based on employment-related fears, specifically the perception that women with intellectual disability might take jobs that others could perform. Some company characteristics may exacerbate this, given that these obstacles are particularly common in small private firms.

In the different systems, interviewees’ contributions confirm the intersection of gender and intellectual disability. This dual identity appears to exacerbate the exclusion of women with intellectual disability from integrated employment. It is explicitly noted that, within families, if a family member is a woman and also has an intellectual disability, her lack of opportunities for empowerment is accentuated. She is also thought to lack the capacities for integrated employment, and fears and confinement to domestic life are further increased. A similar pattern occurs in society at large. A woman who has an intellectual disability tends to have less access to integrated employment (even from the recruitment and selection process for jobs), whereas her engagement in domestic tasks (for example, caring for elderly parents) is more highly encouraged. The intersection is also reported in the workplace system. Obstacles related to having an intellectual disability are compounded by discriminatory practices associated with being a woman (for example, difficulties related to potential maternity leave).

Based on the EST, it is possible to hypothesize interactions among the systems considered. The results appear to confirm this idea, which is especially evident in the effect that the societal level has on the family level in several ways. Society does not always provide parents with the education needed to encourage the integrated employment of their daughters with intellectual disability. Families seem to perceive social environmental reactions that reinforce their fears (e. g., discriminatory practices by peers at school). Finally, the rural context does not support the integrated employment of women with intellectual disability. For example, a long commute to the workplace often amplifies family-related fears and difficulties. This situation is, to some extent, bidirectional; that is, it is mutually reinforcing. Social inclusion policies may face difficulties because of families’ fears and their tendency to assign more domestic tasks to their female members with intellectual disability.

The rationale underlying EST (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986), in combination with the intersectionality concept (e. g., Chan and Hutchings, 2023), was found to be very helpful in identifying obstacles women experience when trying to achieve and maintain integrated employment. The intersection or overlap between two identities based on gender (women) and disability (intellectual disability) created or emphasized obstacles that emerged in three main social systems: family, society, and workplace. Women with intellectual disability can potentially be embedded in these three social systems. The family is a very proximal environment that, according to our findings, typically produces barriers. In society, there are also obstacles that hinder integrated employment for women. Finally, women with intellectual disability face difficulties from the companies themselves in accessing integrated employment and maintaining it under the same conditions as other workers. All these results taken together are consistent with the idea that intellectual disability is partly socially created (Michailakis, 2003; United Nations, 2006). Disability is the result of “the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (United Nations, 2006, preamble, p. 1). Below, we discuss the obstacles identified within each system. We also analyze how the three systems can interact.

We also interpreted the role of obstacles in the integrated employment of women with intellectual disability through the dynamic interactions among the three systems. This relationship between systems can be understood from a bottom-up perspective, moving from the most proximal system (family) to the more general or macro-level system (society), and considering the workplace as an intermediate system. The opposite direction, from a top-down perspective, is also possible, starting from society at large. This mutual influence between systems is observed in our results and it is implicit in previous efforts (Simplican et al., 2015).

Starting with a bottom-up perspective, it is possible to hypothesize that overprotection within families may lead women to appear less competent at work when handling specific tasks, which, in turn, may influence coworkers’ attitudes in the workplace and contribute to the existence of a sticky floor in society as a whole. A top-down direction is also possible; for instance, general societal attitudes or a broader culture of discrimination against women with intellectual disability may permeate other systems, such as the workplace and the family. Cross-level interactions among systems are especially complex when these systems carry different valences, whether positive or negative. For example, parents may seek to promote integrated employment for a daughter with an intellectual disability while facing organizations, workplaces, and a broader society that hold negative attitudes toward her effective inclusion in employment.

Our results have practical implications for professionals, leaders, policymakers, and family members, among others. An important aspect of identifying the obstacles we have investigated is their role in the different social systems in which women with intellectual disability live and interact with others: family, society, and workplaces. That is, obstacles to accessing integrated employment are present in various areas of their lives. First, with respect to families, a significant challenge is empowering women with intellectual disability by their family members. Providing training and support for families can help reduce their fears and overprotection, increase expectations about the capabilities of women with intellectual disability, and facilitate their integrated employment. Changes in the environment that enhance physical (e. g., elimination of physical barriers) and psychological (e. g., adapted emergency hotlines through electronic devices) safety could help families reduce their fears and overprotection. In addition, not all families are the same. Specific support could be given to families from rural areas and to those in which the parents are elderly and/or have low levels of education. Second, it is important to transform society by considering specific strategies for women and their access to integrated employment. Some actions can be helpful, such as those related to education and awareness (e. g., through experiential workshops), the development of public inclusive regulations oriented towards facilitating the access of women with intellectual disability to integrated employment and stimulating their promotion (avoiding the sticky floor), communication plans devoted to these women and their employment, and the use of data and success stories to demonstrate their capabilities, among others. Finally, actions are also needed in companies and workplaces, such as providing training to co-workers without disability to help them understand women with intellectual disability and improve their interactions with them, generalizing support and customized employment, and implementing policies and practices that protect women with intellectual disability, regardless of the economic sector and whether they decide to become mothers or not.

As in all studies, ours has some limitations that can serve as a stimulus for future research. First, our focus was on obstacles, but the positive contributions of women with intellectual disability in the workplace can also be considered. Of course, considering obstacles is quite relevant due to the problems these women have in accessing integrated employment. This study helped identify the obstacles and suggest specific actions. However, focusing on positive contributions could provide a complementary view. For example, exploring how their contributions to others (e. g., support for co-workers without disability) help change attitudes towards women workers with intellectual disability within companies can be informative. Second, although our study contributes to mapping relevant obstacles faced by women with intellectual disability in accessing integrated employment, the transferability of these findings beyond the Spanish context is limited. Conducting the study in Spain allowed us to gain a nuanced understanding of the local sociocultural and institutional factors that shape these obstacles. However, caution is needed when applying these insights to other countries or cultural settings, given that different social policies, support structures, and cultural norms may produce distinct patterns of challenges. Future cross-cultural research would help to distinguish which obstacles are broadly relevant and which are context-specific. Third, our recruitment strategy, conducted through Plena inclusión España, was instrumental in reaching participants and building trust. At the same time, it may have influenced the profile of participants by focusing primarily on women and families who are already engaged with formal support systems. This limitation points to the potential benefit of incorporating alternative recruitment sources in future studies, in order to capture the experiences of those less connected to formal supports and enhance the diversity of perspectives. Fourth, the relatively small sample size naturally limits the breadth of representation. Although saturation suggests that the key obstacles were identified, confirming these findings with additional informants would strengthen confidence in their applicability and highlight potential nuances that were not captured in the present study. Fifth, our reliance on interviews as the sole method provided rich, in-depth insights into participants’ experiences. Nevertheless, the absence of complementary methodologies, such as surveys, observational data, or intervention studies, implies a lack of triangulation, which could otherwise help corroborate and expand the findings. Incorporating multiple methodological perspectives in future research would provide a more robust and multidimensional understanding of the obstacles identified. Finally, it is important to acknowledge the potential influence of desirability bias. Participants may have consciously or unconsciously presented themselves or their experiences in ways they perceived as socially acceptable or expected. Although this does not invalidate the findings, reflecting on this possibility encourages a critical interpretation of the data and highlights the need for methodological strategies that can mitigate such biases in future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study contributes to the knowledge about the obstacles that women with intellectual disability experience in accessing and maintaining integrated employment. These women face challenges in different social systems or areas of their lives, including their families, society, and the workplace. This perspective provides a systemic and rich map of obstacles that also suggests actions involving agents who play different roles and come from various levels in the system (professionals, leaders, policymakers, family members, etc.).