Reframing Neurodiversity in STEM

What does neurodiversity in STEM mean to you? This is a question posed to a variety of stakeholders throughout the STEM pipeline, from K12 and Higher Education to the engineering workforce. Answers ranged from dismissal to deeply personal stories of success, challenge, systemic bias, and the angst of disclosure. A common thread was gratitude for the question, because neurodiverse and disabled students and working professionals continue to be underrepresented and underserved in STEM and Medicine.¹

As a neurodiverse and disabled engineer, STEM educator, and author of our Faculty Forward series on inclusive teaching and disability belonging, CTLD instructional designer Sara Shunkwiler, continuously advocates for her community. Prior articles in this Inclusive Teaching series built a foundation on the challenges and positive benefits of disability belonging and chronicled our journey at CTLD to create a culture of inclusion for neurodiverse and disabled STEM students, faculty, and staff. Earlier articles used the term ‘disabled’ to include neurodiversity, as well. Here, we will take a deeper dive into the ‘and’ in “neurodiverse and disabled” and why the neurodiversity paradigm calls for reframing neurodiversity as an asset in STEM.

 What is Neurodiversity?

Neurodiversity is a way of categorizing neurological processing differences for the estimated one fifth of the world’s population with Autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, and others; mental health conditions such as OCD, depression, and anxiety; and medically acquired differences in brain functioning due to traumatic brain injury, medical procedures, or illness.³

It is a social concept highlighting the natural variation and uniqueness of the human nervous system, its needs and abilities, and resulting differences in cognition, emotion, perception, and communication.⁴

Neurodiversity has also come to represent the broader civil rights movement advocating for respect of cognitive differences, support for marginalized individuals, and a reduced emphasis on pathologizing neurological function.⁵

The terminology of neurodiversity varies and is often hotly debated due to individual preferences, group and cultural norms, and an evolving understanding of bias in language.⁶ Neurodivergence broadly refers to individuals who process and interact with the world differently than what is considered ‘typical’ in their particular society.⁷ The terms neurodiverse and neurodiversity will be used here, because although common, ‘neurodivergent’ and ‘neurotypical’ may imply and reinforce stereotypes, bias, and the myth that there is any one best way to interact and communicate in the world.⁸

The term neurodiversity was coined by Autistic researcher and social scientist Judy Singer in 2016.⁹ As a social concept, human cognitive diversity is, at its root, a subset of biodiversity and a reminder of the vital role of diversity in sustainable ecosystems and societies.¹⁰ According to Singer¹¹, “Neurodiversity is a state of nature to be respected, an analytical tool for examining social issues and an argument for the conservation and facilitation of human diversity. It is not a synonym for ‘Neurological Disorder’”.

Views of Disability

Disability has historically been viewed using the medical model which assumes that disability is a medical condition to be cured or fixed. It frames disabling experiences as within the person and due to their individual impairments or limitations.¹² The social model of disability was proposed in 1983 and instead examines the social, cultural, and built environments around individuals as disabling factors that impede full participation and belonging rather than one’s body, health condition, or diagnosis.¹³

More recent views affirm that disability is a civil rights issue and a universal human experience with disability being the only minority group that anyone can join at any time due to accident, injury, illness, or aging.¹⁴ Rather than labeling differences in mental functioning as deficits to be fixed, the neurodiversity movement embraces differences in cognitive functioning as part of natural diversity in the human race that is essential to our thriving and survival.¹⁵

Neurodiversity or Disability?

Reframing neurodiversity moves from a deficit paradigm to a strengths-based emphasis on ways of processing, analyzing, and creative problem solving that are vital in STEM fields.¹⁶ Reportedly, numerous Nobel Laureates, Nikola Tesla, Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, and 50% of NASA employees are neurodiverse.¹⁷ In earlier articles, we explored both the challenges and positive benefits of identification within the thriving and welcoming disability culture. Hopkins Disability Pride Month in July 2024 focused on Neurodiversity 101, with our team at CTLD presenting two workshops on math accessibility and equitable access in STEM.

In education and workplace settings, however, a disability diagnosis is typically required to access accommodations and acquire even basic support. The accommodation process can be stigmatizing and a diagnosis difficult to secure, particularly in minority populations or due to cost.¹⁸ Late diagnosis in adult students and STEM professionals is becoming increasingly common, often after a child or family member is diagnosed, and the debate over whether ‘labels’ are necessary can be challenging.¹⁹

The everyday reality of many neurodiverse individuals is that ongoing stigma and bias, a lack of educational and professional opportunities, or an inability to advocate for themselves prevent full participation in many aspects of life, including higher education and the workforce.²⁰ To frame neurodiversity entirely as a personal asset or strength risks minimizing the very real challenges and bias that arguably most neurodiverse individuals face at some point in their lives.²¹

Neurodiversity and disability intersect with all other groups and identities but are often overlooked in efforts to diversify STEM fields.²² A strengths-based reframing of neurodiversity and focus on the skills and contributions of individuals throughout all levels of education and hiring will be essential to change society’s current deficit paradigm.²³

The Challenges of Disclosure

Interviews with graduate STEM students found many do not disclose neurodiversity or disabilities for fear of drawing attention to themselves and potential bias from faculty and fellow students.²⁴ Students cite challenging relationships with faculty and the physical and mental health toll of masking to fit into rigid ‘neurotypical’ STEM courses and workplaces.²⁵ Even with a positive view of the disability community, internalized and societal stigma can be difficult to avoid when students must first self-identify as ‘different’ and go through Student Disability Services offices, with few universities choosing names such as Academic Success and Accessibility Services.²⁶ Faculty typically receive only an accommodation letter with no discussion of a student’s particular strengths and limited effort in response from faculty or universities to embrace pedagogy that would better support all students.²⁷

Faculty Impact

A proactive approach to inclusive teaching supports all students without the added burden of disclosure. Faculty have a direct impact on diversifying STEM and greater influence on student success than students’ own backgrounds.²⁸ Diverse faculty and staff role models and mentors are essential for all underrepresented groups to feel a sense of belonging.²⁹ Neurodiverse faculty may be reluctant to share their experiences with students, however, having faced similar educational or workplace bias. Faculty may also be unaware of underrepresentation among neurodiverse and disabled students and the importance of being a mentor.³⁰

Sarah Silverman, educational consultant in Disability Studies with Goodwin University, shared an interesting parallel between the assumption that potentially overwhelmed or unresponsive faculty are ‘set in their ways and unwilling to try something new’ and neurodiverse students who might challenge an assignment or activity as irrelevant.³¹ Reconsidering these two stances as neutral feedback allows consideration of diverse perspectives on why the activity, course design, or conversation seems irrelevant and different approaches instead.³² For example, team projects are commonplace in engineering, but their effectiveness depends upon thoughtful planning and clarity.³³ Neurodiverse students or colleagues can be disadvantaged in several ways, including team selection and peer reviews, unspoken communication norms, unclear context, intended outcomes, and evaluation criteria.³⁴

Changing the Neurodiversity Narrative

The future of knowledge creation in STEM demands neurodiverse thinkers who may themselves be best suited to understand the role of neurodiversity in society’s ability to adapt and prosper.³⁵ Reframing neurodiversity and removing barriers supports a more innovative future for everyone, not just the 27% of us who are neurodiverse and disabled.³⁶

Ways to Be an Advocate or Ally³⁷

• Encourage a paradigm shift from a deficit model to an empowerment model
• Value and celebrate all types of diversity as fundamental to innovation in STEM
• Raise awareness of how traditional STEM courses disadvantage neurodiverse and disabled students and prevent equitable access
• Empower diverse faculty to share their stories as role models
• Allow emerging technologies as assistive tools
• Engage all stakeholders in reconsidering how we teach and learn
• Utilize the Universal Design for Learning Plus One principle to start small and avoid overwhelm

Please join and continue this conversation through Faculty Forward workshops, articles, online Book Club, or Faculty Forward Fellowship. Together, students, faculty and staff have an opportunity to impact the future of STEM for everyone.