Abstract
Through the lens of a neurodiversity affirming paradigm, an Institutional Review Board approved nonexperimental survey was developed to gather meanings of neurodiversity among students, faculty, and staff of a multi-campus university community. Research questions included: What do meanings of neurodiversity reveal about a larger cultural understanding of neurodiversity? What are the similarities and differences between meanings provided by neurodivergent and neurotypical campus community members? How present and/or internalized is ableism and a deficit lens of disability in the shared meanings? And, do the shared meanings take a strengths perspective? Responses (N = 627) were coded using thematic analysis. Findings are framed in relation to three models of disability: medical, social, and neurodiversity. A majority of students, faculty (teaching employees) and staff (non-teaching employees) acknowledged human differences in relation to social norms, followed by a medical view of neurodiversity as pathology; and thirdly, a lens of neurodiversity affirming culture. Patterns were similar for students, faculty and staff identifying as neurodivergent and not identifying as neurodivergent.
Lay Abstract
There is no one agreed upon definition of neurodiversity in the research literature. Previous research also shows neurodiversity is not yet a well-known term on university campuses. This study was conducted on a university campus to identify what neurodiversity means to students, faculty, and staff. We also asked students, faculty, and staff if they identified as neurodivergent. After reviewing shared responses for patterns, we found that they fell into three themes: endorsing medical pathology, questioning social norms, and affirming neurodiversity culture. The majority of responses fell into questioning social norms. Our results may support universities in building upon existing understandings of social norms to expand student, faculty, and staff's recognition of neurodiversity as valuable.
The continuous growth in students and faculty identifying as neurodivergent in higher education reflects a shifting landscape on university and college campuses (Bakker et al., 2019; Hamilton & Petty, 2023). This shift requires systemic change toward both an understanding of neurodiversity through a cultural lens and an openness to providing new systems of support for groups previously excluded from universities (Accardo et al., 2024). A growing number of universities are engaging in efforts to better understand and support neurodivergent students, faculty, and staff. For example, Landmark College, Stanford University, the University of LaVerne, William and Mary University, and Rowan University are among the first to establish university neurodiversity centers.
Neurodiversity Defined in Practice
Despite a growing literature base on neurodiversity and higher education over the last decade, research is limited in how neurodiversity is defined and how a neurodiversity affirming paradigm is enacted (Renzulli & Gelbar, 2023). The term neurodiversity, widely understood as recognizing brain differences as natural human variation, emerged in the 1990's by autistic advocates to negate the ableist concept of a normal brain (Botha et al., 2024). While there is no one agreed upon definition, autistic scholars provide a framework for understanding neurodiversity in research and practice. For example, Walker published the often-cited work, “Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms and Definitions” in 2014, providing a valuable focus on the language around neurodiversity, including definitions, examples, and frequently misused terms (see Walker, 2021). Scholars anticipate that definitions of neurodiversity will continue to evolve. Noting complexities around identifying as neurodivergent as well as surrounding systems, Chapman (2020a) predicts an evolution of the concept over time. Similarly, Dwyer (2022) notes that scientific paradigms, such as that of neurodiversity, naturally evolve. Germane to defining neurodiversity, Dwyer denotes tensions around the alignment of neurodiversity to models of disability (2022).
Models of Disability
Disability models serve as frameworks to unpack how disabled (and non-disabled) people interact and are treated within society (Retief & Letšosa, 2018; Zaks, 2024a). While there are numerous models of disability, those most commonly connected to neurodiversity include the medical, social, and neurodiversity models. The medical model purports disability as pathology or deficit within an individual (Goodley, 2016). In contrast, the social model postulates disability as socially constructed, moving the onus of disability from the individual to the social environment or norms (Bölte et al., 2021; Den Houting, 2019). Despite the consensus among scholars that the neurodiversity paradigm rejects the medical model (Chapman, 2020b), there is disagreement around whether the neurodiversity paradigm should be limited by alignment with the social model of disability (Chapman, 2020a, 2020b; Dwyer, 2022).
Historically, neurodiversity has been closely aligned with the social model; however, this alignment has been questioned, as binary understandings of disability (e.g. impairment vs. disability; medical vs. social; neurodivergent vs. neurotypical) do not capture variation inherent within diversity paradigms or the disability community (see Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2013; Dwyer, 2022; Zaks, 2024b). Further, the social model has been critiqued for the way it focuses on oppression without accounting for the lived experience of having significant support needs (Davis, 2018; Shakespeare, 2013). Stemming from the neurodiversity movement, a neurodiversity affirming model recognizes value in human diversity, building pride in neurodivergent identity alongside empowerment to elicit support (Kapp, 2022). In the present study, we take up a neurodiversity affirming model to support a wider vision, one in which our campus community members recognize the neurodiversity of students as valuable to our university.
Theoretical Framework: Neurodiversity Affirming Paradigm
Through the lens of a neurodiversity affirming paradigm, recognizing that all aspects of human diversity are natural and valuable (Walker, 2021), the present article aims to elicit what neurodiversity means to neurodivergent and neurotypical students, faculty, and staff on our affiliated higher education campuses. Calls for a shared definition of neurodiversity have emerged in the research literature primarily in relation to practice and to common questions including those emerging on college campuses: Who identifies as neurodivergent? How do we support neurodiversity culture? And how/do disability and neurodiversity overlap? (e.g. Renzulli & Gelbar, 2023). With an awareness of the scholarly conversations around neurodiversity, rather than a definition, our goal is to better understand whether our campus community is open to neurodiversity affirming practice and to building neurodiversity culture on campus. To that end, we elicited shared meanings of neurodiversity among neurodiverse (neurodivergent and neurotypical) students, faculty, and staff. By analyzing these shared meanings, we hope to uncover if our community shares a culture of empowerment or pathology and to reimagine ways our campus climate can become more humanizing and compassionate (Chapman, 2020a).
Neurodiversity on Campus
Affirming neurodiversity culture goes hand-in-hand with decreasing stigma and ableism entrenched in higher education (Nachman, 2023). Eliminating biases by establishing a community in which neurodiversity is understood and valued may play a role in students’ willingness to disclose disability labels as often required to receive formal university accommodations (Bolourian et al., 2018). Decreasing ableist practices, conscious and dysconscious, is essential to shifting away from traditional college policies and practices (Wilson & Dallman, 2024) such as the barrier of disclosure for services. Further, a neurodiversity affirming campus may support positivity around neurodivergent identity formation and may decrease mental health conditions related to stigma and/or pressure to camouflage (Scheerer et al., 2020; Van Hees et al., 2015).
Emerging actionable recommendations to support neurodiversity on campus include implementing inclusive practices, questioning normativity, and implementing principles of universal design (Spaeth & Pearson, 2023). Of note, research is especially limited in relation to the experiences of neurodivergent university faculty and staff. Research recommendations specific to their support include providing workplace accommodations without requiring formal documentation, universally designing tasks and spaces, and recognizing and eliminating bias and stigma in the workplace (Accardo et al., 2024; Mellifont, 2023). In terms of supporting neurodivergent students, research recommendations include centering neurodiversity in equity and inclusion initiatives, reducing stigma, emphasizing strengths, universally designing learning, and expanding neurodiversity-specific supports (Dwyer et al., 2022; Kuder et al., 2021; Spaeth & Pearson, 2023; Wilson & Dallman, 2024).
Purpose
We aimed to gain an understanding of the ideals and beliefs held by campus community members around neurodiversity through an exploration of shared meanings. We launched a campus-wide neurodiversity survey in conjunction with the opening of our university Center for Neurodiversity. Specific questions guiding our research include as follows:
What do meanings of neurodiversity reveal about a larger understanding of neurodiversity by a university campus community? What are the similarities and differences between meanings provided by neurodivergent and neurotypical campus community members? How present and/or internalized is ableism and a deficit lens of disability in the shared meanings? Do the shared meanings take a strengths perspective?
Methods
The present study is part of a larger mixed methods study using nonexperimental survey and follow-up interviews to gather perspectives around neurodiversity from students, faculty, and staff connected to one university in the Northeastern United States. Classified as a national public research university, the university system includes a main campus, three affiliated colleges, and two medical schools serving undergraduate and graduate students across a wide range of degree granting programs. Student, faculty (professors, instructors, and lecturers), and staff (employees in non-teaching roles) meanings of neurodiversity were captured through an online survey and the open-ended question, what does neurodiversity mean to you? The survey was developed by a neurodiverse taskforce established through our university Division of Inclusive Excellence, Community and Belonging and included demographic questions and Likert scale questions. The demographic questions captured neurodiversity and disability identities, participants’ role and affiliation on campus, as well as race/ethnicity, gender identity, and age. Initial Likert scale question responses and results limited to the neurodivergent participants are reported upon separately in the research literature (Accardo et al., 2024). The Qualtrics-based Institutional Review Board approved survey captured responses beginning spring 2021 through summer 2022 via four invitations posted within our university email announcement system.
Participants
We gathered 787 initial responses to the survey. Of the responses, 159 were removed including those that left the open-ended prompt (what does neurodiversity mean to you?) blank, responded N/A, or indicated uncertainty, e.g. “I don’t know.” Of the 627 remaining valid responses, 313 participants did not identify as neurodivergent, 287 identified as neurodivergent, and 27 preferred not to respond. Among the neurodivergent participants, 181 identified as students and 106 as faculty (professors, instructors, and lecturers) and staff (employees in non-teaching roles). The majority of respondents identified as female (63%) and as white (74%). See Table 1: Demographic data.
Demographics.
Analysis
A thematic analysis was conducted with responses double coded using a combination of deductive (theory driven) and inductive (data driven) analyses to gain a richer understanding of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, we familiarized ourselves with the data by reading all responses in their entirety. Next, the transcripts were reread with initial trends noted as relating to various models of disability. For example, during our first reading of data, we noted responses related to ableism and deficit laden meanings of neurodiversity (medical, pathologizing model), as well as meanings of neurodiversity through a value laden lens (neurodiversity model). We determined that understanding how members of our campus community make meaning of neurodiversity and how these meanings relate to models of disability as initial categories made sense, as models permeate all aspects of life, shaping biases and assumptions and becoming embedded beliefs (Zaks, 2024b).
We followed this theory-driven analysis for first-round coding. We were influenced by Broderick and Lalvani's (2017) method of conducting an analysis of graduate students’ definitions of the term disability using three defined categories: Category I: Conservative; Category II: Liberal; and Category III: Radical. Similarly, we used models of disability to establish three categories: Category M: Medical Model; Category N: Neurodiversity Model; and Category S: Social Model. Both authors engaged deeply with the research literature on models of disability (Chapman, 2020a; Chapman, 2020b; Dwyer et al., 2022; Nicolaidis, 2012; Zaks, 2024b) prior to and during coding. Both authors coded each response concurrently, coding whole responses as units of analysis, using the predetermined categories. Responses that felt salient were discussed and disagreements on categories were shared until consensus was agreed.
Next, responses were coded through a subsequent inductive phase via open and in vivo coding to value participant voices (Saldana, 2009). Codes and phrases were sorted by categories. For example, “difference,” “acceptance,” and “questioning normal” were coded within Category S. Grouping our data-driven codes together within our theory-driven categories, we identified overarching themes honoring participant meanings of neurodiversity. Three themes were developed: Endorsing Medical Pathology; Affirming Neurodiversity Culture; and Questioning Social Norms. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the thematic analysis. In agreement with theory rejecting a normal/abnormal binary (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2013) and considering Dwyer's (2022) centering of a neurodiversity approach between the medical and social models of disability, we use overlapping circles and nonconsecutive letters to avoid representing categories (or disability models) as a dichotomy or continuum. Demographic data were analyzed descriptively using frequency counts and mean percentage. Participants with a dual role of student and faculty were only included in faculty data so as not to be counted twice, and so experiences related to teaching could be captured with subsequent questioning (see Accardo et al., 2024).
Visual Representation of Analysis.
Results
Shared meanings of neurodiversity most commonly acknowledged human difference from societal norms. Accordingly, the majority of students, faculty, and staff (71%) provided meanings of neurodiversity in alignment with the social model of disability. This finding was consistent across all participant demographic groups including students, faculty, and staff identifying as neurodivergent and neurotypical. This view was followed by a deficit perspective of neurodiversity with 16% of students, faculty, and staff providing meanings in alignment with a medical model of disability. Students, faculty, and staff infrequently provided meanings of neurodiversity in alignment with a neurodiversity model (6%). See Table 2 for group responses by categories.
Group Responses by Category.
Note: Responses reporting the university neurodiversity definition and/or limited responses were excluded.
Throughout all of the responses, several high-frequency words appeared. The words “difference,” “brain,” “cognitive,” “social,” “autism,” and “variation” were most common. The word “strength” was a low-frequency word, only occurring in a handful of responses. See Table 3 for example findings by theme, reported in detail below.
Themes and Example Codes.
Note: ND = identified as neurodivergent; not ND = did not identify as neurodivergent.
Theme: Questioning Social Norms
Awareness of social constructions of “normalcy” and recognition of neurodivergence as “difference” were identified as the dominant shared lens across all participant sub-groups (see Table 2). An important finding across all participants, a majority of responses were overall neutral, reflecting a factual understanding that there are brain/mind differences. For example, Neurodiversity is a term addressing the fact that not everyone's mental activity conforms with what is perceived as that of the general population. Neurodivergent people are not ‘better or worse’ but simply see the world and process the world through a different lens than a majority of people. (student; not neurodivergent)
Faculty and staff not identifying as neurodivergent and preferring not to respond expressed meanings of neurodiversity through a lens of social construction at the highest rates (78–93%), followed by faculty and staff identifying as neurodivergent (66%). Shared meanings commonly mentioned “difference” and included intermittent awareness of social “norms.” For example, “Embracing the many different ways people live and move in the world, and working to shed preconceived notions about what counts as ‘normal’ or ‘intelligent’” (faculty, not neurodivergent). This response also reflects an emerging social justice lens in relation to neurodivergent people, being ‘disadvantaged.’ Faculty and staff responses commonly entailed supporting neurodivergent people as allies, advocates, and self-advocates. For example, “Understanding, accepting and including folks without pathologizing or othering us- whether we can ‘see,’ relate to or come to terms with our grasp on how they are” (faculty, neurodivergent). Also honing in on the marginalization of neurodivergent people, another staff member shared: There is a range of differences in cognitive and behavioral function. Individuals with cognitive and behavioral functions that are outside of the established societal norms are disadvantaged by those norms. As a society, we should move away from the norms that have been established. They are not appropriate or necessary. (professional staff, not neurodivergent)
Faculty and professional staff also called out the ableism faced by neurodivergent people through a lens of social oppression, calling for a reduction of stigma and shame surrounding neurodivergence. For example, one faculty member shared a meaning of neurodiversity as, “differences in brain functioning; there is no stigma to differences but rather a recognition that we learn and think in different ways” (faculty, prefer not to respond). Similarly, a staff member shared: It's a term used to combat stigma against individuals who are otherwise on the autism spectrum and beyond. It helps reframe the societal prejudice that goes along with people who simply view and feel the world differently than what is deemed as ‘average’ or ‘normal.’ (professional staff, not neurodivergent)
Students echoed the need for acceptance of difference through their responses, for example, “Acceptance that not everyone can function the same and that being different is not shameful” (student, neurodivergent).
Students identifying as neurodivergent were more likely to share meanings of neurodivergence through a social model lens (66%) than students not identifying as neurodivergent (56%). Student responses often focused on the acceptance of difference in relation to learning on campus. For example, Basically … everyone has their own style of learning. Some people learn by doing hands-on (me) and others learn but watching and listening. Just because we learn differently, does not mean that way is incorrect. Such as the Deaf or Autistic community. They have a different style of how they learn. It is who they are. (student; neurodivergent)
In contrast, students identifying as neurodivergent were also more likely to use disability labels in their responses. For example: Neurodiversity means, to me, that the variations in my brain that I have had from birth, including the variations that caused me to have ADHD, Asperger's, Anxiety disorder, and other mental issues are both ‘normal’ and also not normal at the same time. As in, the mental issues that I have are both not normal for a human to have, but also the brain can naturally have variations in it, just like DNA, and that is a normal, natural process. It is pretty confusing to me a bit, too. (student, neurodivergent)
Theme: Affirming Neurodiversity Culture
Only 39 of 627 participants (6%) provided meanings of neurodiversity expressing empowerment or the valuing of neurodivergence (see Table 2). Responses of participants who identified as neurodivergent were in contrast with those that did not, simply in that this subset used “we”/cultural language with added frequency. For example: Neurodiversity means the acceptance, inclusion and integration of all neurodivergent people as we are – no exceptions. Neurodiversity cannot happen until neurodivergence is normalized, and neurodivergent people do not have to self-identify to get basic inclusion needs met. However, it does mean that if we do self-identify, we will be accepted into the community as full members. Neurodiversity means more than just giving neurodivergent people the benefit of the doubt when we act ‘abnormally,’ but also dismissing neurotypical ideals of ‘normal’ altogether. (student, neurodivergent) People experience the world in different ways…But a growing number of people who experience the world differently are pointing out the strengths and value of their difference in perception, and asking for recognition that cultural norms are just that–socially defined and related to a particular society–and that there is no ‘normal.’
Similarly, a neurodivergent student shared a goal of the neurodiversity movement, to eliminate expectations of normalcy, as essential to valuing difference: Neurodiversity is just different. It is commonly assumed that neurodivergents have less functionality that neurotypicals. If it isn't obvious to the outside world that someone has autism, they are labeled as ‘high functioning.’ Neurodiversity is not the inability to function in society. It is functioning in a world that doesn't expect you to be normal. We are different. That is all. (student, neurodivergent)
Although limited, responses coded as affirming neurodiversity culture shared a common thread of valuing neurodiversity as a benefit to society. Participants who identified as neurodivergent were slightly more likely to take an empowering approach to defining neurodiversity than those who did not (see Table 3). While responses were more limited in number, participants not identifying as neurodivergent also, expressed valuing diverse minds. For example: Neurodiversity means celebrating and embracing all brain types. There is a spectrum of the ways in which brains and people function, and neurodiversity seeks to recognize diversity, and furthermore be inclusive and equitable to support all people. I came to (University) in 2019 and had never heard of neurodiversity before coming to campus, this is a very important initiative to continue to educate and support students, faculty, staff, and community members. (faculty, not neurodivergent)
Another faculty member noted valuing the differing viewpoints that come along with neurodiversity as follows: People have different abilities, strengths, weaknesses depending on how they are neurologically wired. We want to encourage neurodiversity because people can provide a healthy variety of outlooks on any issues because of their differing viewpoints and abilities. (faculty, not neurodivergent)
Yet another faculty member noted that “valuing and honoring these differences in tangible ways and in everyday interactions is a vital part of fostering inclusive community” (faculty, neurodivergent).
Among neurodivergent student responses was the shared understanding that neurodivergence comes with advantages and disadvantages. One neurodivergent student reported that neurodiversity, “explains the range of ways that people perceive the world, alongside the ways that people's brain are built to function in a variety of ways. This includes both advantages and disadvantages to a large variety of neurotypes.” Another student shared that neurodivergence and the valuing of a variety of perspectives and perceptions benefits society: It means accepting that people perceive the world around them differently than I do and that their perception is just as intrinsically valuable as my own. To me, neurodiversity means that we perform better as a whole when we have more perspectives with which to analyze a problem, and that some of those perspectives might not be traditionally or easily understood. (student neurodivergent)
Issues of power and privilege within the wider social justice movement were also the focus of student meanings of neurodiversity. One student shared: Neurodiversity resembles similar movements happening right now, where power and knowledge in how we construct reality is being reconsidered entirely. To me it seems, neurodiversity is a means of reclaiming what years of psychiatry has done to construct an ideal standard of what ‘normal’ looks like. It means whatever traits that might be considered a ‘defect’ or ‘symptom’ are not a problem, and aren't a problem under different societies, and at different time periods. That your traits are your traits, and you have a right to exist as who you are. (student, prefer not to respond)
While overall limited, responses affirming neurodiversity as valuable also frequently encompassed the questioning of social norms.
Theme: Endorsing Medical Pathology
Findings suggest that roughly one in four students and one in eight faculty/staff hold a deficit lens of neurodiversity with little difference across participants identifying as neurodivergent and not neurodivergent (see Table 2). Identifying as neurodivergent did not appear to shift medicalized views of neurodiversity, and of concern, 51 participants identifying as neurodivergent provided a deficit-based view of neurodiversity. For example, one student shared, “It means a mental state or mental illness that is other than the normal brain chemistry and functions of a neurotypical person” (student, neurodivergent). Another shared, “neurodiversity means to have a mental condition that is considered ‘weird.’ It also means a person is diagnosed or showing symptoms of a mental health condition. For example, having ADHD, ADD, Autism, Tourette's, or DID” (student, neurodivergent).
Neurodivergent students depicted personal intersections of disabling experiences and neurodiversity. “Neurodiversity is an atypical way of thinking. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, however it can be hard to live in a typical world with a mental condition. It is something I personally have to deal with” (student; neurodivergent). Of note, while participants not identifying as neurodivergent frequently listed disability labels as definitions, most commonly autism and ADHD, neurodivergent participants more frequently listed mental health and/or learning needs in their shared responses.
For example, “Atypical brain functioning…ranging from individuals who cannot take care of their own basic needs, to individuals who can take care of their own basic needs and much more. Some are accelerating in one area, like learning, cognition, while they are deficient in another, like social cues” (professional staff; not neurodivergent). Faculty and staff not identifying as neurodivergent commonly used a deficit lens of neurodivergence in conjunction with learning. “Students and teachers who experience a variety of neuropsychological issues that include things like processing speed, attention, anxiety, depression, ADHD, spectrum disorders, etc.” (faculty, not neurodivergent). Several definitions presented very stereotypical, deficit-based tropes of autism and ADHD, while fewer included references to mental health.
Several responses also represented questions around neurodiversity. One student shared, “I've heard the term used, but personally am not too sure of what it means. Possibly some type of uncontrollable behavior or thought process that makes it difficult to do things like learn or socialize” (student, prefer not to respond). Similarly, a faculty member shared tensions around coexisting disability and neurodiversity, “I vaguely am aware that it pertains to attention and cognition issues, ADD or ADHD or behavior pertaining to autism. I do not know where neurodiversity and disabilities converge or diverge” (faculty, not neurodivergent).
Overall, internalized ableism permeated the responses of neurodivergent participants including, “neurodiversity indicates people with life- and personality-altering mental illnesses or mental disorders” (student, neurodivergent); a “somewhat scientific way of saying a person has an abnormal brain” (student, neurodivergent); “differences in the brain can cause symptoms from tremors to other physical symptoms, as well as disorders with executive function and certain behaviors” (faculty, neurodivergent); and when the “normal thinking pattern is skewed by any type of disorder or irregular thinking and behavior patterns” (student, neurodivergent).
Discussion
The significance of this research is gaining understanding of the ideals and beliefs held by campus community members around neurodiversity through an exploration of shared meanings. The alignment of responses to models of disability has strengthened our understanding that a majority of our students, faculty and staff recognize neurodivergence as differing from social norms and that these societal norms evoke stigma. Findings can inform campus initiatives leading toward continuous improvement. For example, we can provide professional development and support around recognizing and reducing stigma and bias through our university Center for Neurodiversity; we can revise traditional university practices to meet our neurodivergent faculty, students, and staff where they are rather than requiring them to conform to dominant notions of teaching and learning.
Unified Campus Community
The present study analyzed meanings of neurodiversity from a campus community through thematic analysis connected to models of disability. Primarily, our university views neurodiversity through a social model lens. While a positive finding, that meanings of neurodiversity are not medicalized or deficit laden, we recognize this lens as being vast and broad. In other words, while some participants called out stigma resulting from societal norms and called for empowerment toward change, others acknowledged norms while still using deficit-leaning language. Our next steps on campus will be to recognize and unpack subtleties related to implicit and explicit bias as a neurodiversity affirming practice. The finding that both neurotypical and neurodivergent students, faculty, and staff overall hold similar patterns of meanings of neurodiversity is significant, as it suggests a unified campus community recognizing human difference as fact and questioning social norms.
Cultural Understanding of Neurodiversity
Understanding neurodiversity from a cultural perspective can be useful to better advance the aims of full social inclusion (Walker, 2021). Our findings suggest meanings of neurodiversity shared across our specific campus community most frequently align with a social model of disability. Recognizing that the larger cultural understanding of neurodiversity by our campus community is primarily that of society-imposed exclusionary norms affirms our Center for Neurodiversity launch is positively impacting our campus communities. Yet, findings also suggest we have work to do sharing understanding of neurodivergence as a personal cultural identity and of disability as valuable (e.g. see Chiang, 2020). Further, findings suggest institutional support to identify and remove barriers, policies, and practices that are not neurodiversity affirming on our campuses. We recognize our findings may not mirror wider societal cultural perspectives of neurodiversity or even meanings of neurodiversity on other college campuses. Yet the idea of reflecting on and assessing our communal beliefs, values, and actions to ascertain the degree of our cultural inclusivity is universal.
Recognition of Internalized Ableism
Within shared meanings of neurodiversity, ableism emerged as a concern. Of note, students had the highest percentage of medicalized/deficit views of neurodiversity. Our finding that many neurodivergent students expressed their meaning of neurodiversity through a deficit lens, using terms including “abnormal brain,” and “weird” suggests they may be coming out of K-12 education systems with internalized ableism and negative self-identities. This could be a result of associations with disability labels and childhood experiences of bias and struggle. Findings emphasize the need for universities and colleges to prioritize a neurodiversity affirming paradigm, neurodiversity affirming spaces, and supports identified in partnership with neurodivergent students, faculty, and staff on campus. Reaching underclassmen and transfer students to empower them to embrace neurodiversity affirming culture may be beneficial to combat internalized ableism. Such actions may include partnerships with campus counseling and mental health centers promoting positive understandings of self with a focus on intersectionality and/or disability as diversity. Our next steps in practice include an exploration of how to build upon and expand identified pockets of empowering views of neurodiversity on our campuses.
Theoretical Models and Limitations
In terms of education models, we acknowledge limitations to the use of disability model categories, and note our use of medical, neurodiversity and social models may have limited our findings. We suggest benefit to both conducting future research of shared meanings of neurodiversity, and of expanding analyses to additional theoretical models. In our post-survey reflection, our campus community remains limited in their recognition of neurodiversity and disability culture. As next steps in affirming neurodiversity, for example, consideration of both cultural and value-neutral models may offer a useful lens for exploring understandings of neurodiversity. The cultural model of disability, specifically, “has an understanding that impairment is both human variation encountering environmental obstacles and socially mediated difference that lends group identity and phenomenological perspective” (Snyder & Mitchell, 2006, p. 10). The cultural model has several parallels to Chapman's (2020b) value-neutral model of neurodiversity in that we can recognize the complex ways neurodivergence can impact everyday experiences while also being mitigated by both internal and external factors. Similarly, critiquing and reframing cultural values, particularly ones rooted in deficit views, aligns with Dwyer's (2022) discussion of a neurodiversity approach that seeks to embrace the diversity of minds. Lotfis (2015) argued that autistic culture continues to evolve and the same might be said of neurodiversity culture.
In terms of additional limitations, our findings are limited to the subset of faculty, staff, and students who self-selected to participate in the study. Our findings may not be applicable to other university environments. This study also asked individuals if they identify as neurodivergent with options of yes, no, or prefer not to respond. Comfort levels with disclosing neurodivergent identity vary widely and vary across time. As a result, our findings may not align with the viewpoints of our wider neurodiverse campus community as reported by categories of “identifying as neurodivergent” and “not identifying as neurodivergent” within this study. Finally, while combining data from multiple campuses helped amplify collective voices, it restricted our ability to provide campus-specific insights within our university community.
Conclusion
The present study reports upon meanings of neurodiversity shared by students, faculty, and staff across affiliated university campuses. Notable findings include a majority of students, faculty, and staff sharing a view of neurodiversity through the questioning of social norms. This was followed by a medical view of neurodiversity as pathology, and finally, by a limited lens of neurodiversity as a valued cultural identity. Patterns were similar for students, faculty, and staff identifying as neurodivergent and as not identifying as neurodivergent. This study affirms the work of our Center for Neurodiversity and directs priorities, specifically, to build upon existing understandings of social norms and stigma and to expand community recognition of neurodivergence as a valuable cultural identity.
Footnotes
Ethical Considerations
University IRB approval was obtained for this study.
Consent to Participate
Written consent to participate was obtained per University IRB approval.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article or its supplementary materials.