Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While much research on learning disabilities (LDs) (e.g., dyslexia, dyscalculia, ADHD) focuses on academic under-achievement, there is a need to move beyond deficit-based models of disability and explore its psycho-emotional dimensions. To fill this gap, this study examines the lived experiences of post-secondary students with LDs, focusing on their emotional well-being, social relationships, and resilience, through a social-relational framework. Using qualitative interviews and journal reflections, we ask: (1) To what extent do post-secondary students with LDs experience psycho-emotional disablism? (2) What mechanisms contribute to their positive emotional and social well-being? (3) In what ways do students with LDs perceive their disability as a resource? Emerging themes highlight the dual nature of students’ experiences—while they report psycho-emotional disablism (e.g., bullying, stigma, internalized ableism, mental health challenges), they also describe resilience, heightened empathy, and adaptive coping strategies. These findings underscore the need to acknowledge both the barriers and strengths associated with LDs and other neurodiversities. The study emphasizes the importance of directly engaging individuals with LDs to understand their psycho-emotional experiences, including viewing their disabilities as sources of personal growth, strength, and resilience. Considering LDs as a resource, rather than a limitation, could have significant implications for individuals and educational frameworks.

Lay Abstract

Many people think of learning disabilities (LDs) mainly in terms of academic struggles, but there is much more to the story. This study looks at how university students with LDs experience their disabilities—not just in terms of academics, but in their emotional lives and social relationships. We spoke with students and read their personal reflections to better understand how they feel about themselves, how others treat them, and how they manage challenges. We found that students often face emotional harm because of stigma, bullying, and negative assumptions. This can lead to stress, low self-esteem, and mental health struggles. However, we also found that many students develop strengths in response to these challenges. For example, they often show strong empathy, creativity, and determination. Some even describe their LDs as helping them grow into more compassionate, resilient people. Our study shows that LDs are not just problems to be fixed. They are also part of what makes people unique and strong. We need to listen more closely to the voices of people with LDs and build education systems that recognize both their challenges and their strengths.

Keywords

learning disabilities psycho-emotional disablism qualitative interviews lived experience strengths-based approach disability as a resource emotional well-being

Introduction

There is an increasing number of students with learning disabilities (LDs) pursuing higher education (Osborne, 2019). LDs are often defined as lifelong neurological differences that impact the processing, production, and storage of information (Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario [LDAO], 2018). In the present study, the term “learning disability” is used in the North American sense to include specific learning disorders (e.g., dyslexia, dyscalculia) as described in DSM-5 and ICD-11 (APA, 2013; WHO, 2019), along with commonly co-occurring neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD and, in some cases, autism. We note that in the UK, LD primarily refers to intellectual disability, which differs from the usage here. Throughout the paper, we use the abbreviation “LD” to reflect both participant usage and North American conventions. While we recognize that in the UK context “learning disability” typically denotes intellectual disability, and that the abbreviation “LD” may be considered reductive, our usage aligns with terminology familiar to participants in this study. At the same time, we acknowledge the deficit-based origins of the term and situate our approach within the neurodiversity movement, which emphasizes difference and strength rather than impairment.

In the States, during 2019–2020, 14% of students aged 3–21 received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), with LDs comprising the largest category at 33% (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2021). Additionally, students with LDs are disproportionately affected by mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, peer victimization, self-injury, and self-hatred (Piers & Duquette, 2016). While post-secondary institutions increasingly provide academic accommodations (e.g., assistive technology, reduced-distraction testing environments), these supports often fail to address the psycho-emotional challenges many students face (Zeng et al., 2018). This study explores how post-secondary students with LDs experience and navigate psycho-emotional disablism, and in what ways they perceive their disabilities as sources of strength. The goal is to provide a nuanced understanding of their lived experiences and inform more holistic and inclusive support practices for students with LDs and other neurodiversities in higher education.

Theoretical Framework: Social-Relational Model

Disability has traditionally been understood through two dominant models: the medical model, which locates disability within the individual and emphasizes deficits, and the social model, which locates disability within disabling societal systems and attitudes, highlighting environmental barriers, exclusion, and stigma (Goodley et al., 2019). While the social model marked a crucial shift by reframing disability as social injustice rather than personal tragedy, it tends to overlook the emotional and experiential dimensions of disability. The social-relational model (SRM), developed by Carol Thomas (1999), builds on the social model by recognizing both structural oppression and the psycho-emotional impacts of impairment. It integrates social disadvantage with biological and emotional experiences, viewing disability as both systemic and personally felt (Reeve, 2014). Unlike models focused solely on external barriers (e.g., accessibility or accommodations), the SRM also considers “impairment effects,” such as the emotional toll of discriminatory attitudes (Connors & Stalker, 2007).

Closely aligned with Critical Disability Studies, the SRM challenges deficit-based understandings of disability, instead framing it as a historically, culturally, and politically constructed identity (Goodley et al., 2019). Both frameworks emphasize two key dimensions of disability: “barriers to doing” (which limit participation) and “barriers to being” (which affect identity and self-worth) (Thomas, 2006). These models highlight how social attitudes shape both daily functioning and self-perception. The SRM, in particular, foregrounds psycho-emotional disablism—avoidable restrictions that harm mental health and self-concept (Reeve, 2020; Thomas, 1999). As such, it offers a powerful lens for examining how structural barriers and social attitudes intersect to affect disabled individuals’ well-being, while also supporting activism and inclusion.

Reconceptualizing Disability: From Tragedy to Resource

The SRM helps reconceptualize disability not as tragedy but as a potential resource shaped by social attitudes and dynamics. Garland-Thomson (2012) argues that disability “generates circuits of meaning-making in the world” (p. 344), positioning it as a contributor to cultural and social growth. Thus, disability not only challenges exclusionary systems but also creates space for personal and collective development. Garland-Thomson identifies disability as a narrative, epistemic, and ethical resource. Narratively, it disrupts dominant stories of normalcy and deficiency. Epistemologically, it generates new ways of understanding based on the lived experiences of disabled individuals. Ethically, it challenges society to rethink inclusion and commit to accessibility and justice. This reframing benefits society—by inspiring innovation and universal design—and benefits individuals by revealing how disability can foster resilience, insight, and unique strengths. For students with LDs, viewing their disability as a resource may transform how they understand themselves and their potential within academic settings and beyond, thereby fostering self-advocacy, empowerment and personal growth.

The Current Study

This study, while grounded in the SRM, also adopts a neurodiversity approach, by focusing on the lived, emotional, and social dimensions of LDs, aiming to challenge dominant narratives of deficiency and celebrate differences. The study creates an opportunity for post-secondary students with LDs to share their personal experiences, offering insight both into the barriers they face and their unique strengths, which were potentially shaped, in part, by their disability. These students occupy a critical space where societal expectations around ability, intelligence, and productivity converge. Hearing their voices helps illuminate how identity, resilience, and resistance to disablism are shaped within higher education, and offers valuable insights that can inform more inclusive educational practices, reduce stigma and discrimination, and promote understanding, support, and empowerment for learning-disabled individuals. While the study was theoretically grounded in the SRM and acknowledges that identity is shaped by intersecting realities of sex, gender, and socioeconomic context, the scope of the present interviews focused more directly on students’ psycho-emotional experiences of disablism and their perceptions of disability as a resource. Intersectional factors emerged indirectly when participants raised them but were not a primary focus of the interview guide. This study explores the following research questions:

To what extent do post-secondary students with LDs experience psycho-emotional disablism?

What mechanisms support their social and emotional well-being?

How and to what extent do they view their disability as a resource?

Moving beyond academic performance—already well-documented (Piers & Duquette, 2016; Pitt & Soni, 2017; Zeng et al., 2018)—this study centers the psycho-social-emotional perspectives of students with LDs. As Pitt and Soni (2017) emphasize, engaging directly with students is vital for understanding the complex psychological realities they navigate. Without their voices, we risk reinforcing narrow, pathologizing understandings. By exploring how students confront disablism and reinterpret their disabilities as strengths, this study contributes to reframing LDs as part of the rich diversity of human experience.

Methods

Participants

This study was conducted in September 2023 to March 2024 and involved semi-structured interviews with 16 undergraduate postsecondary students with LDs (12 female; four male), registered with Student Accessibility Services (SAS) at a mid-sized university in Ontario. Although no formal documentation was required, participants self-disclosed their diagnoses, which included dyslexia in most participants (n = 14), accompanied by ADHD (n = 8), anxiety (n = 7), depression (n = 4), dyscalculia (n = 3), autism (n = 2). Most were in their first (n = 6) or third (n = 5) year of undergraduate study (see Supplemental Table 1 for participant information). Notably, the university where this study took place is nationally recognized for its strong mental health and accessibility supports (Dakin, 2020), which may have differentially shaped participants’ experiences compared to those at institutions with fewer disability supports. Recruitment involved emailing a poster and detailed study description to students registered with SAS. Participants received a $20 gift card for their time.

Procedure

Interviews

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted, each lasting between 45 and 60 min. The semi-structured interview guide (see Appendix 1) included core questions about participants’ experiences of stigma, self-advocacy, personal skills, and perceptions of disability as a resource. These questions were designed to align directly with the study's three research questions. Some questions included: Do you feel there is a stigma associated with your disability? How important is self-advocacy to you? What are some of your skills that you see in yourself? Can disability be positive? Additional follow-up questions emerged organically within conversations, depending on participants’ responses, which allowed for relational and contextual factors (e.g., gender, socioeconomic background, family roles) to be discussed when raised by participants. While the interview guide itself did not explicitly probe these broader intersectional realities, the flexible format made space for them to surface, though they were not consistently foregrounded in all interviews.

Journal Entries

Within a month following the interviews, participants were invited to submit a reflective journal entry. The journal prompt encouraged deeper reflection, offering a non-judgmental space for participants to expand on thoughts they may not have articulated during the interview:

Reflect on a time you were made to feel belittled or different because of your LD. How did this make you feel? Now, reflect on a time where you felt empowered by your LD. Discuss the ways in which your LD allowed you to either advocate for yourself or educate others.

Participants chose to submit entries as either text or voice recordings. Together with interviews, the journals provided deeper, more personal insights into their experiences with disability, disablism, and empowerment.

Rationale for Qualitative Approach

This study used a qualitative approach to capture the lived experiences of students with LDs—an approach well-suited to exploring the complexities of disability (Niesz et al., 2008). Semi-structured interviews enabled participants to share their perspectives in their own words, offering rich, in-depth accounts (Thomas, 2006). An inductive design allowed themes to emerge from the data rather than imposing pre-existing categories, while the open-ended format encouraged authenticity and reflection. Following Jones et al. (2021), we ensured coherence by aligning our interpretivist framework, qualitative design, and dialogic methods, which view knowledge as co-constructed through interaction. We emphasized reflexivity by recognizing our positionalities and centering participants’ voices, treating meaning-making as a shared, relational process. In line with Heyworth (2024), who critiques the use of inaccessible and deficit-oriented standardized measures in disability research, we intentionally avoided rigid instruments in favor of relational, participant-centered methods. Semi-structured interviews and reflective journals provided more accessible and empowering ways for neurodivergent participants to express their experiences with greater agency.

Researcher Positionality

In the spirit of reflexivity and awareness of the power researchers hold in shaping narratives, we offer brief positionality statements to clarify the identities and values that inform our approach, promoting accountability and acknowledging how our perspectives shaped the co-construction of meaning.

Dr. Peddigrew

I approach this research with personal connections to LDs and firsthand experience with mental health challenges. These experiences, along with my academic grounding in education and Critical Disability Studies, shape my commitment to equity and justice. I view research as a relational and subjective process, continuously shaped by participant dialogue. Throughout the study, I reflected on how my choices—what I emphasized, questioned, or interpreted—influenced the knowledge being created. In my research, I aim to foster a more relational, humanizing understanding of disability that moves beyond deficit-based narratives.

Dr. Panda

As a developmental cognitive neuroscientist, educator, and parent with personal and professional experience with ADHD and dyslexia, I bring a strengths-based, empathetic and outside-of-the-box perspective to this work. My research and teaching focus on neurodiversity and on helping pre-service teachers and clinicians recognize and provide evidence-based support for students with diverse learning profiles. I contributed to shaping questions that encouraged participants to reflect on both the barriers and the insights, strategies, and strengths they bring to their experiences and to help give voice to their stories here. I aim to reframe difference as diversity and challenge deficit narratives that often surround learning and ability.

Together, we understand research as a relational practice shaped by who we are. Our shared goal was to foreground participants as co-creators of meaning and remain critically reflective of how our lenses shaped the process. By embracing reflexivity, we aim to foster research that is both rigorous and humanizing—creating space for the complexities, challenges, and possibilities within disabled people's narratives.

Ethical Considerations

Pseudonyms were used to protect participant confidentiality. As interviews were conducted in person, full anonymity was not possible. Participants were informed that audio and transcripts would be securely stored and promptly deleted. Due to this data retention policy, member checking was not conducted. The study received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Office at Brock University.

Data Analysis

Interview recordings and journal entries were transcribed verbatim and reviewed for accuracy. Using Braun and Clarke's (2006) inductive thematic analysis, coding began openly and progressed to broader thematic development via NVivo.

Results

Findings from interviews and journal reflections are organized thematically to address the three research questions (RQs) (Table 1). To do so, we identified three overarching themes with interconnected subthemes. While presented separately for clarity, these subthemes reflect overlapping dimensions of broader experiences. For example, accounts of bullying and social isolation (Theme 1a) often intersected with struggles around self-perception and mental health (Theme 1c, 1d).

Table 1.

Major Themes of Interviews and Journal Reflections.

1	Experiences of Psycho-Emotional Disablism
	1a. Bullying, Social Isolation, and Internalized Stigma
	1b. “Invisible” Disability and Accommodations1c. The Self: Internalization and Self-Perceptions1d. LDs and Mental Health
2	Contributing Mechanisms That Support a Positive Well-Being2a. The Journey to Self-Advocacy2b. Positive Support Networks and Agency
3	Viewing LDs as A Resource
	3a. Resilience and Empowering Messages3b. Creativity and Empathy3c. Agency and Contributing to Greater Good

RQ 1: Experiences of Psycho-Emotional Disablism

Bullying, Social Isolation, and Internalized Stigma

A dominant theme across interviews and journals was the enduring emotional impact of bullying and social isolation. Participants described being targeted for being “different,” often internalizing harmful stereotypes over time:

People find it easier to single out people who are different. I feel like you are more susceptible than an able-bodied person…it's easy to be victimized. (Caroline)

I was bullied a lot…seeing how people treated me made me doubt myself. (Amy)

I actively felt like an outsider, very lonely, and isolated. (Natalie)

I felt isolated and alone. I developed an overwhelming sense of insecurity and inadequacy…I knew I'd never succeed. (Sara)

Nick referred to LDs as an “inherently isolating experience,” a view echoed by others who described both peer and institutional exclusion. Journal reflections revealed the emotional toll of such encounters:

I told a peer I had a LD… they responded with pity. This made me feel abnormal. (Anne)

She said, ‘Are you slow? Only a retard needs something repeated so many times.’ It felt like she physically struck me. (Britt)

Some recalled being shamed by teachers, reinforcing their sense of failure and exclusion:

One teacher… grabbed my paper and said, ‘This is how not to be a good student.’ (Rachel)

Mrs. M refused accommodations… called me lazy and worthless. (Nick)

At grad, my teacher asked the same math question I couldn’t answer in Grade 4. I still didn’t know. He said, ‘Have you learned nothing?’ (Ryan)

These experiences often left lasting psychological scars, fostering low self-confidence and a sense of otherness. Many participants also spoke of the stigma attached to LDs and the pressure to meet social ideals of perfectionism:

Special education is inherently seen as a negative thing. You're put into a box. (Nick)

I was upset when I got diagnosed… I don't want to be one of “those”… that label was hard. (Grace)

Participants frequently mentioned internalizing harmful stereotypes such as being seen as “lazy,” “stupid,” or “dependent.” These labels shaped how they viewed themselves and their capabilities:

Internalization leads to resentment of your LD… society creates a separation of disabled vs nondisabled. (Anne)

On top of experiencing the LD, we're also experiencing the perception of other people. (Ally)

I wish people could see past the label – I’m capable of much more. (Rachel)

“Invisible” Disability and Accommodations

Participants discussed how the invisibility of LDs often leads to skepticism and judgment:

There's one picture that you [society] has in their head of someone with a disability and they forget it can look like different things. (Ryan)

I heard my peers say, “I had no idea she was sped” … I’m afraid people are going to think it's not fair.(Nick)¹

Dan and Leah shared reluctance to use accommodations out of fear of being perceived as lazy:

I didn't want to use my accommodations because I thought people would think it was an excuse to procrastinate or be lazy. (Dan)

I procrastinated getting a diagnosis…you’re seen as less than. (Leah)

Hannah stated, “others feel like accommodations made me do better than them.” Due to the “hidden” nature of LDs, many grappled with revealing their disability. These responses highlight the need to reframe accommodations as equitable supports rather than unfair advantages.

The Self: Internalization and Self-Perceptions

Many participants described internalizing failure and feeling inadequate:

Even if I was doing the best I can, [it] was never enough. I start to internalize, if none of my work is good, am I even enough? (Ryan)

There's a lot of doubt and discouragement…what is the point of even trying if you already expect failure? (Sara)

Look at all the things I have wrong with me. What do I have right with me?…it take's 100 positive comments to get rid of one negative comment. (Amy)

Feelings of shame and guilt were common:

A lot of shame and guilt comes with that internalization because, sometimes there's no cause for your LD and nothing you could have done to change it… you’re left with no fingers to point. (Anne)

The best way to describe it is shame… you could have done better if you didn't have an LD…that's an internalized feeling I didn't realize until I talked about it. (Nick)

Britt acknowledged the pervasive nature of self-criticism and self-blame:

Whenever something bad happens, I immediately start thinking it's my fault…I push everything down and try to ignore all the negative words.

In their journals, many discussed the impact that disability stigma has on their self-perception:

They told me I will always struggle…that made me doubt my potential…I felt like there was truth to their opinion. (Amy)

It's difficult not to internalize comments and have them affect your outlook on yourself and your future. (Maddy)

While social experiences shaped these feelings, participants like Amy also highlights how ableist messages led her to question whether university was worth the stress—deeply affecting her self-perception and sense of academic potential.

LDs and Mental Health

Nearly two thirds of the participants reported diagnoses of anxiety, and/or depression. In all cases, this was secondary to their primary LD diagnosis (dyslexia, ADHD and/or dyscalculia).

Feeling different impacts your mental health. You know you're not alone, but you feel isolated. (Nick)

You're dismissed…that eventually makes a child depressed…mental health and LD are connected. (Dan)

I have had depression since I was diagnosed with LD. I questioned my intelligence and self-worth…I went down a dark path. (Hannah)

Several others tied the internalization directly to mental health struggles:

I think about those who aren't diagnosed, they just think somethings wrong with them…disability made me more prone to depressive episodes. (Lisa)

Having a LD impacts your mental health… it can lead to a lot of negative feelings, depression, anxiety…that affects how you're thinking about yourself. (Anne)

Leah and Jill's reflections further highlighted the detrimental effects of stigma on self-esteem:

Self-esteem goes beyond, it can include depression, anxiety, and mental illness, because of the stigma you face. (Leah)

The narratives reveal the profound psychological toll of psycho-emotional disablism and its entanglement with mental health.

RQ2: Contributing Mechanisms That Support a Positive Well-Being

The Journey to Self-Advocacy

Several participants struggled with self-advocacy due to frustration with the education system, and internalized stigma. Jess admitted, “there never seems time to do it.” Maddy reflected:

Getting that self-advocacy took a lot of time. It's frustrating…you get disappointed when you see everyone else being able to do everything.

Nick echoed this frustration;

Having to advocate for yourself constantly is annoying…It seems unfair that we are constantly having to explain ourselves. (Nick)

Ryan shared that in high school, his struggles went unnoticed because he was already seen as “dumb, lazy, or not motivated.” Dan saw advocacy as a burden, “I don’t practice self-advocacy, it isn’t helpful…nothing changes.” Despite these challenges, Jill recognized its importance:

You won't get the help that you need if you don't do anything about it…that's something that can be implemented in different aspects of life. (Jill)

Positive Support Networks and Agency

Participants credited their ability to self-advocate to influences such as family, teachers, and peers:

My mom always says, you're successful…you need to advocate for yourself in every aspect of life. (Amy)

My teacher stopped coming to my desk and asking me if I needed help. She told me, I need to practice self-advocacy. (Lisa)

Anne and Sara found comfort in open communication with like-minded peers:

I’ve realized how much it helps to not feel alone. I have friends where we can talk about things openly…it really helps with the isolation disability creates. (Anne)

You learn so much off your peers…when I was uncomfortable to go to teachers, my peers helped explain things a different way. (Sara)

Self-advocacy was repeatedly linked to agency and the ability to confront systemic injustices:

It's such a powerful thing…no one else is going to do it for us. (Rachel)

Advocating and pushing for change normally ends in people listening …we're the ones who know what we need best. (Anne)

If I stay quiet, chances are it's going to happen to me and others. By speaking up, I think it has the potential to create positives. (Lisa)

Ally attributed her growth in self-confidence to advocating for accommodations:

Getting diagnosed and then [securing] accommodations took a lot of advocating… I gained a lot of confidence in making appointments and telling people…I need help.

The result of practicing self-advocacy and acceptance enabled participants to understand how they can begin to reconceptualize their disability as a resource.

RQ 3: Viewing LDs as a Resource

Resilience and Empowering Messages

Participants were asked questions such as: What are some of your strengths? How does your disability allow you to be more unique? Despite grappling with self-doubt, participants spoke of determination and growth:

Disability makes you unique by not making you give up even when you want to. (Hannah)

When you have a LD, you go through a lot of self-growth. You quickly come to the realization that the only person you should be competing with is yourself. (Jess)

Similarly, Amy and Grace discussed in their journals that:

I feel empowered when I share my experiences to demonstrate that having an LD is not a life sentence… having a LD has proven my strength and resiliency. (Amy)

This is the only life you get so you might as well make the most of it…I wish I knew when I was younger. (Grace)

When asked what they would tell their younger selves, participants shared messages of hope and compassion. Jess advocated for a straightforward approach, “I would be brutally honest, be confident and talk to people.” With tears in her eyes, Anne said:

It felt like so many things were my fault that really, I shouldn't have been taking on at all. Just because something is different, you just blame yourself.

Several shared a message of hope while reflecting resilience and powerful reassurance:

Having a LD, and just disabilities in general, it's not something to be ashamed of or anything to doubt yourself about or make yourself feel worthless about. (Ryan)

I would tell myself; you can do it and that you did it. I still doubt myself, so I would tell myself to be more patient with myself. (Amy)

Reflecting on what one would tell their younger self holds particular significance for individuals with LDs for the journey of self-discovery and acceptance.

Creativity and Empathy

Many participants acknowledged the impact of their LDs on their creative thinking. Grace emphasized, “I get to think a bit differently and have different ways of solving problems.” Lisa identified strengths in detail orientation and artistic expression, while Jess noted the value of divergent thinking in innovation. Sara claimed:

My LD has helped me think creatively and visualize things differently, giving me a unique perspective.

Another prevalent theme was the heightened empathy and compassion cultivated through lived experiences with disability. Dan noted,

Your empathy levels increase, because people that don't struggle will not inherently understand somebody that does.

Nick, though still fighting to see the positives, acknowledged in his journal:

I better understand other's struggles. This has made me quite empathetic and even inspired me to be a teacher, to help other children with LDs, like myself.

Hannah emphasized the motivation to support others through shared struggle. Lisa framed disability as a vital part of identity, while Maddy and Jess expressed a commitment to inclusivity and preventing marginalization. Leah described developing greater patience through working with others with disabilities. Participants such as Ryan, Sara, Rachel, Grace, and Dan saw these qualities as essential to their career aspirations in teaching, social work, or law enforcement.

Agency and Contributing to Greater Good

Participants strongly expressed a desire to use their experiences for the benefit of others:

Don’t think of your disability as a disability, just think you're differently abled…it's a part of what makes you who you are. (Maddy)

I want to make a difference in my community, and I want to be that source of light that I didn't necessarily get in my childhood. (Sara)

If you force society to be like, hey, there's this part of humanity that needs attention? You will make a difference. (Lisa)

Some noted the value of neurodiversity for progress:

I think we need people who think differently, you can't have progress without people who think differently. (Grace)

My unique perspective became a source of inspiration… turning my LD from a source of isolation into an opportunity for positive change. (Sara)

Leah concluded powerfully:

This journey, from feeling belittled to realizing the strengths that come with LD, is a story of personal growth, resilience, and turning challenges into opportunities for learning and empowerment…during these moments, my LD is my superpower.

Collectively, these narratives highlight the complex, yet powerful, ways in which individuals with LDs navigate, challenge, and reframe their experiences – not only to empower themselves but to foster a more inclusive and compassionate society.

Discussion

Guided by the SRM and a neurodiversity perspective, this study explored how post-secondary students with LDs experience psycho-emotional disablism, the mechanisms that support positive well-being, and extent to which they reframe LDs as sources of strength. Organized by the three research questions, this discussion integrates findings with existing literature.

RQ 1: To What Extent Do Post-Secondary Students With LDs Experience Psycho-Emotional Disablism?

Chronic Invalidation and the Self

Disability oppression affects individuals, not only through public interactions, but also through internal experiences (Reeve, 2014). LD labels often carry historical stigma (Peña et al., 2016), leading to what Osborne (2019) calls “epistemic invalidation,” where dominant narratives devalue disabled individuals’ experiences and knowledge. In this study, Rachel described the term LD as loaded with negative connotations, reinforcing misconceptions about intelligence. Leah and Ryan similarly internalized these messages, with Ryan stating, “I’ll never succeed”—a reflection of how structural ableism shapes self-perception. As Wissell et al. (2025) note, diagnostic labels often highlight deficits while ignoring social and emotional contexts, influencing both how others see individuals and how individuals see themselves. These experiences reflect Reeve's (2014) concept of psycho-emotional disablism, where social messaging becomes embedded in the psyche, shaping how individuals feel about themselves. Without visible indicators of disability, participants often faced the double bind of either disclosing and risking skepticism or staying silent and missing out on support (Waterfield & Whelan, 2017). Jess and Grace, for example, spoke of being misjudged as “lazy” or “unmotivated,” despite putting in significant effort—echoing Osborne's (2019) observation that disabled students’ hard work is often rendered invisible under myths of unfair advantage. These accounts suggest that psycho-emotional disablism is not just experienced in interpersonal moments but becomes a lens through which students see themselves. Educators may contribute by minimizing LDs or attributing difficulties to low effort (Goodley et al., 2019), fostering shame and a sense of inadequacy. This environment, built on rejection and charity, creates a “secondary disability”—a persistent internalized stigma that erodes self-worth (Vygotsky, 1993).

LDs and Mental Health: Secondary Disabilities

Vygotsky's (1993) distinction between primary (organic) and secondary (social) disabilities aligns with Thomas’s (1999) framework, showing how stigma and discrimination compound the challenges of LDs. Psychological and emotional distress—what Reeve (2014, 2020) calls non-material disablism—results in diminished well-being. The findings in the present study also revealed a crucial connection between LDs and mental health. Participants like Hannah, Anne, and Lisa recounted that their “secondary disabilities” (depression, anxiety) were a result of internalizing stigma, feeling embarrassed and anxious, and an overall decreased self-esteem. Secondary disabilities were expressed as emotional distress, and in some extreme cases feelings of self-harm. This distress, rooted in societal perceptions of their learning differences, led to a detrimental impact on their mental health and overall well-being.

RQ 2: What Are the Contributing Mechanisms That Support a Positive Social and Emotional Well-Being Among Post-Secondary Students with LDs?

Self-Advocacy

Navigating post-secondary education requires students with LDs to manage academic challenges alongside emotional ones. Self-advocacy emerged as a central mechanism of support. Rooted in the 1970s disability rights movement, self-advocacy enables individuals to assert their needs and develop a positive self-concept (Stuntzner et al., 2018). Critically, self-advocacy is an acquired skill that can be developed either formally or informally, through support groups or Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Self-advocacy skills empower individuals with disabilities to address challenges, challenge biases, and make informed decisions that improve well-being (Stuntzner & Hartley, 2014). Students with LDs may struggle with self-advocacy due to limited self-knowledge, lack of guidance, or unawareness of available resources. Participants such as Maddy, Nick, Dan, and Jill viewed self-advocacy as empowering yet often difficult, requiring persistence and self-knowledge. Stuntzner and Hartley (2014) suggest pairing self-advocacy with self-compassion—the practice of kindness and patience toward oneself. Neff (2011) argues that self-compassion helps challenge internalized negativity and supports emotional resilience. This was evident in participants like Jess, Amy, Grace, and Hannah, who described how cultivating greater self-compassion positively influenced their overall well-being.

Positive Support Networks

Social support plays a vital role in protecting students with LDs from negative outcomes (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Peers are a major source of emotional support, helping participants feel understood and less isolated (Piers & Duquette, 2016). In the current study, most recognized peers as a primary source of emotional support. Peer relationships help combat isolation, facilitate understanding, and offer guidance. Parental support was also significant, providing encouragement, advocacy, and affirming strengths. By actively engaging with teachers and support services, parents can help create inclusive learning environments that cater to their child's individual needs, promoting a sense of acceptance (Osborne, 2019). Additionally, educators can foster inclusive environments by applying adaptive learning principles that align with individual strengths (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Such practices promote engagement and growth (Osborne, 2019). Though external support is vital, participants also emphasized the importance of internal strength and belief in one's capabilities to sustain well-being.

RQ 3: How and to What Extent Do Post-Secondary with LDs View Their Disability as a Resource?

Resilience and Creativity

Participants in this study frequently described their LDs as catalysts for personal growth. Resilience—the ability to adapt and persevere—was a consistent theme. This trait is not innate but developed over time, particularly in response to the barriers LD students encounter (APA, 2013; Stuntzner et al., 2018). Many participants shared stories of overcoming skepticism from educators, repeated need to self-advocate, and coping with emotional exhaustion. These experiences fostered adaptability and a growth mindset. Rather than viewing their LDs as limitations, students reframed them as strengths that contributed to their development and success.

Participants described a unique way of thinking, often characterized by enhanced visual, spatial, and intuitive reasoning. These self-reports align with previous research suggesting that individuals with LDs tend to rely more on right-hemisphere brain functions, which are associated with nonverbal reasoning, creativity, and problem-solving (McNamara, 2020). Fletcher and Grigorenko (2017) note that individuals with LDs often demonstrate strengths in processing visual and spatial information, which may reflect compensatory cognitive strategies and alternative neural pathways. These findings also resonate with recent work on ADHD by Bradley et al. (2025), who argue for a shift from a deficit model to a neurodiversity-affirming approach. Rather than pathologizing traits such as impulsivity or inattention, their study highlights how participants reframed these traits as adaptive risk-taking or hyperfocus, which can contribute to creative breakthroughs and innovative thinking. Similarly, participants such as Sara, Grace, and Lisa framed their learning differences not as impairments, but as sources of resilience and creative problem-solving, particularly when environments were flexible and affirming. This reframing reflects broader calls to recognize neurodivergent traits as differences that can be harnessed rather than deficits to be remediated.

Empathy and Sensitivity

Though research on interpersonal strengths in individuals with LDs is limited, many participants described a heightened capacity for empathy, patience, and sensitivity. Shared experiences of exclusion and misunderstanding allowed them to connect with others on a deeper level. Maddy, for example, promoted the idea of being “differently abled” as a source of empowerment, while Amy emphasized inclusion and community-building. By sharing their experiences, participants humanize the LD experience, making it more relatable to those unfamiliar with its complexities, potentially fostering empathy in others without LDs as well. Along with increased sensitivity, those with LDs may also exhibit greater levels of patience. LDs frequently require persistent effort and time to accomplish tasks that others may find straightforward. Whether it is mastering a new concept or completing assignments, individuals with LDs learn to persist through these challenges, often requiring multiple attempts to achieve their goals.

This study reveals that individuals with LDs not only possess the capacity for empathy, patience, and resilience but may also contribute these qualities to society in ways that enhance social cohesion and support. For example, one participant described using their own struggles with learning to support others who felt left behind in school, demonstrating a heightened sensitivity to exclusion and a strong drive to help. Expanding research on these strengths can help reshape societal views on disability and highlight neurodivergent traits as meaningful and contextually adaptive (Bradley et al., 2025).

Limitations and Future Directions

While the study sheds light on both the psycho-emotional disablism and the possibilities to view LD as a resource, several limitations should be considered. The study was conducted in a single Canadian university context, which may limit transferability to other cultural and national settings. Given cross-cultural differences in how disability is defined and supported, future research should examine psycho-emotional disablism and disability-as-resource across diverse educational systems. The sample lacked racial diversity, limiting insights into how intersecting factors like race, gender, and socioeconomic status shape LD experiences. This study prioritized ethical considerations by safeguarding sensitive interview and journal data, maintaining participant anonymity and confidentiality. Member checking was not possible due to ethical restrictions on follow-up, limiting direct validation of interpretations.

While psycho-emotional disablism is increasingly recognized, further research is needed to understand its subtle impacts in families, schools, and peer groups. Future studies could explore how reflection and viewing disability as a resource may be a means to support wellbeing and empowerment for students with LDs. Increased awareness and targeted interventions are essential: university staff should create emotionally inclusive spaces; educators need bias training and stigma-free accommodation practices; and parents require tools to affirm strengths. Reframing accommodations as equity tools, alongside mentorship and peer support focused on resilience and neurodiversity, can further empower students.

Concluding Thoughts

The growing number of post-secondary students with LDs calls for a deeper understanding of their psycho-emotional well-being. While supports exist, many challenges remain, particularly in addressing broader contextual needs. First-hand accounts are essential for driving change, as they offer insights that observational research may miss. This qualitative study explored how students with LDs experience psycho-emotional disablism and highlighted the psychological impacts of oppression. It also revealed the strengths that participants linked to LDs—such as creativity, resilience, and empathy—shifting the narrative from deficit to resource. By doing so, it contributes to the limited, but growing, discourse on the advantages of neurodiversity. This shift challenges stigma and promotes a more inclusive framework that values neurodiversity and empowers individuals with LDs. While shared themes exist, each person's journey is shaped by their unique perspective and living with a disability can foster inner strength and redefine what it means to thrive (Stuntzner et al., 2018).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ndy-10.1177_27546330251394345 - Supplemental material for Beyond Psycho-Emotional Disablism: Reframing Learning Disabilities as Resources in the Lives of Post-Secondary Students

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ndy-10.1177_27546330251394345 for Beyond Psycho-Emotional Disablism: Reframing Learning Disabilities as Resources in the Lives of Post-Secondary Students by Emma Peddigrew and Erin J Panda in Neurodiversity

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This research was conducted while Emma Peddigrew was affiliated with the Department of Child and Youth Studies at Brock University. Emma is now affiliated with the Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy at The University of Toronto.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Dr. McNamara and Dr. Tarulli for their guidance and support throughout the development of the dissertation from which this study evolved. We are also deeply thankful to Dr. Hill for her insightful contributions to the framing of positionality, which greatly enriched the theoretical foundation of this work. Lastly, thank you to the staff and participants of Student Accessibility Services, if it were not for you, this study would not have been possible.

ORCID iDs

Emma Peddigrew

Erin J Panda

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Office at Brock University (#23-129).

Consent to Participate

Informed written consent to participate was obtained from all participants.

Consent for Publication

Written informed consent for publication was obtained from all participants whose data are included in this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Appendix 1: Interview Questions

Tell me about your disability. When were you diagnosed?

What are some of your interests? What do you like to do for fun?

Where do you see yourself in the future?

What are some of your skills that you see in yourself?

What are some strategies you do to decrease stress?

Can you explain the importance of peer relationships to you?

Do you feel there is a stigma associated with your LD or accommodations?

Do people have a hard time seeing the strengths/positive attributes of your disability?

Are you open to telling people about your disability? Why or why not?

Have you ever regretted disclosing to someone about your disability? Why/who?

How have other people defined your disability?

Would you say that other people’s understandings of disabilities are similar to your own?

Does having a disability ever cause individuals to perceive you in a certain way?

Does having a disability make it any harder for you to maintain a positive self-esteem?

What would you tell your younger self?

How is the world a better place with you in it?

When has talking about your disability been useful?

What do you wish people knew about disability culture?

Would you say that having a disability makes you any more vulnerable to MH issues?

What would you say to someone who is struggling with their disability?

Has your disability ever made it difficult to maintain social relationships or friendships?

How important is self-advocacy to you? Is this something you practice?

What facets of your disability allow you to be more unique?

Can disability be positive?

Do you have any suggestions for the education system to become more accepting? What about the larger society?

Is there anything you really want to use your voice to share that we didn’t get a chance to touch on?

References

American Psychiatric Association . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Bradley

Parzych

Platts

Powell

(2025). Understanding and harnessing differences in women with ADHD: A qualitative study. Neurodiversity, 3, Article 27546330251317199. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330251317199

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Connors

Stalker

(2007). Children’s experiences of disability: Pointers to a social model of childhood disability. Disability & Society, 22(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590601056162

Dakin

(2020, October 8). Brock retains top national ranking for mental health support and climbs in student satisfaction, cross-Canada reputation. The Brock News, https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2020/10/brock-retains-top-national-ranking-for-mental-health-support-and-climbs-in-student-satisfaction-cross-canada-reputation/ .

Fletcher

J. M.

Grigorenko

E. L.

(2017). Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: The past and the future. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 23(9-10), 930–940. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617717001084

Garland-Thomson

(2012). The case for conserving disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 9(3), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-012-9380-0

Goodley

Lawthom

Liddiard

Runswick-Cole

(2019). Provocations for critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 34(6), 972–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1566889

Heyworth

(2024). Commentary: Addressing stigma through relational research design. Neurodiversity, 2, 27546330241230428. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330241230428

10.

Jones

S. R.

Torres

Arminio

(2021). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Essential elements and issues. Routledge.

11.

Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario . (2018, February). Learning disabilities statistics. https://www.ldao.ca/intro-to-ldsadhd/articles/about-lds/learning-disabilities- statistics/.

12.

McNamara

(2020). Creative problem solving and children with learning disabilities: A hidden potential. LD@school, https://www.ldatschool.ca/creative-problem-solving-and-lds/#:∼:text=Growing%20up%20creative%20is%20an,highest%20form%20of%20self%2Dactualization.

13.

National Center for Educational Statistics . (2021, May). Students with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg.

14.

Neff

K. D.

(2011). Self-compassion: Stop beating yourself up and leave insecurity behind. Harper Collins Publishers.

15.

Niesz

Koch

Rumrill

(2008). The empowerment of people with disabilities through qualitative research. Work, 31(1), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2008-00793

16.

Osborne

(2019). Not lazy, not faking: Teaching and learning experiences of university students with disabilities. Disability & Society, 34(2), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1515724

17.

Peña

Stapleton

L. D.

Schaffer

L. M.

(2016). Critical perspectives on disability identity. New Directions for Student Services, 1(154), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20177

18.

Piers

Duquette

C. A.

(2016). Facilitating academic and mental health resilience in students with a learning disability. Exceptionality Education International, 26(2), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v26i2.7739

19.

Pitt

Soni

(2017). Students’ experiences of academic success with dyslexia: A call for alternative intervention. Support for Learning, 32(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12186

20.

Reeve

(2014). Psycho-emotional disablism and internalised oppression. In Swain

French

Barnes

Thomas

(Eds.), Disabling barriers - enabling environments ((3rd ed, pp. 92–98). Sage.

21.

Reeve

(2020). Psycho-emotional disablism: The missing link? In Watson

Vehmas

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies (2nd ed, pp. 102–116). Routledge.

22.

Schonert-Reichl

K. A.

(2017). Social and emotional learning and teachers. The Future of Children, 27(1), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0007

23.

Stuntzner

Dalton

Umeasiegbu

MacDonald

Mercado

(2018). Resilience and disability. Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 49(4), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1891/0047-2220.49.4.5

24.

Stuntzner

Hartley

(2014). Resiliency, coping, and disability: The development of a resiliency intervention. VISTAS Online, https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/article_44.pdf?sfvrsn=8 .

25.

Thomas

(1999). Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability. Open University Press.

26.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

27.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol 2: The fundamentals of defectology (R. Rieber & A. Carton, Eds.; J. Knox & C. Stevens, Trans.). Plenum Press.

28.

Waterfield

Whelan

(2017). Learning disabled students and access to accommodations: Socioeconomic status, capital, and stigma. Disability & Society, 32(7), 986–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1320273

29.

Wissell

Hudson

Flower

R. L.

Goh

(2025). I hate calling it a disability’: Exploring how labels impact adults with dyslexia through an intersectional lens. Neurodiversity, 3, 27546330241308540. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330241308540

30.

World Health Organization . (2019). International classification of diseases for mortality and morbidity statistics (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/.

31.

Zeng

Hord

(2018). A literature review of academic interventions for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(3), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717744292

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB