Abstract
Neurodiversity refers to a range of neurological or neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, and Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) (Khan et al., 2022). The concept indicates natural variations in brain function (Botha et al., 2024; Roberson et al., 2021). Originally proposed by sociologist Judy Singer in the late 1990s, the term has grown in prominence and has contributed to increased awareness of various forms of neuro-difference (Roberson et al., 2021). Importantly, it frames these differences not as medical deficits but as expressions of human diversity, thereby challenging privileges historically associated with neurotypicality (Khan et al., 2022). Among the 28.7% of adults with disabilities, 13.9% have cognitive disabilities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2025) that underscore the scale and relevance of this population within Adult Education and Human Resource Development (HRD) contexts.
Despite both the prevalence of neurodivergent individuals and the positive influence on the term neurodiverse, individuals labeled under this umbrella continue to face barriers in career advancement and remain underrepresented in leadership roles (Samosh, 2020). HRD scholarship and practice have largely neglected neurodiversity, particularly in career and leadership development (Procknow & Rocco, 2016; Procknow et al., 2017; Roberson et al., 2021). Neuroatypical individuals are often positioned outside a presumed normative society due to perceived difference (Procknow et al., 2017). Ableism reinforces the assumption that neurotypicality constitutes the norm and is inherently superior. In contrast, the concept of neurodiversity challenges this hierarchy by reframing neurological and neurodevelopmental differences as natural variations in human cognition rather than deficits requiring correction.
However, contemporary scholarly discussions often rely on oversimplified dichotomies such as social versus medical models and strengths versus deficits, despite the complexity of lived experience and the distinct characteristics of specific neurological and neurodevelopmental conditions (Srinivasan, 2025). While the neurodiversity framework resists deficit-based thinking, it also functions as an umbrella term that groups diverse conditions under a shared banner. As with any broad categorization, this framing can reveal important commonalities while simultaneously obscuring meaningful differences. Against this backdrop, and reflecting on both our professional experiences editing this volume and our personal experiences with neurodiversity, we find ourselves pausing to ask, “Is neurodiversity the best way to frame our research in Adult Education and HRD?” This themed issue suggests that the answer may be, “yes.” At the same time, we recognize that umbrella terms can conceal as much as they illuminate. They can serve as powerful organizing frames in certain contexts while becoming limiting in others.
Our personal experiences deepen this tension. We have close familial relationships with multiple individuals whose diagnoses fall under the umbrella of neurodiversity. Yet, we have observed significant diversity both across and within diagnostic categories. Individuals who share the same diagnosis often differ profoundly in learning styles, strengths, support needs, and identity formation. Without questioning the advocacy value of neurodiversity as a collective framework, we raise questions about when and how the term is most useful for shaping research agendas.
For example, one of the authors of this editorial (Jeremy) was diagnosed with dysgraphia as a child, yet this form of neurodiversity is not substantively represented in this themed issue. As Jeremy edited submissions on forms of neurodiversity that centered the experiences of folks whose diagnosis differed from his, he was excited and edified to see those voices centered—and also convinced by a sense that his future work under this umbrella would need to be more focused. This experience reinforced a broader concern: while neurodiversity functions as an effective organizing concept, it may not always provide sufficient conceptual precision for focused empirical inquiry. Research framed broadly around neurodiversity risks uneven representation unless scholars intentionally examine the diversity within the umbrella itself.
Likewise, as we edited this volume, we were reminded of the tremendous degree of diversity within the neurodiverse community. This leads us to the question we used as a title for this article. Is neurodiversity the term we need for research? The fact that we edited a themed issue framed this way suggests that we believe that “yes” this can be an effective framing. But, we also recognize that many forms of research are based on narrowly framing specific topics. In these cases, “drilling down” into a single identity associated with neurodiversity might yield stronger results. In these cases, we encourage future researchers to choose more narrowly defined identities or diagnoses on which to center their research. This type of work could certainly be contextualized within the broader literature on neurodiversity, disability, or social justice.
An additional question about when neurodiversity may or may not be the best framing for a study has to do with issues of representation. For example, what happens when the sample of neurodiverse research participants overrepresents people from one or two diagnostic categories? While leaving certain forms of neurodiversity unrepresented? Does such work adequately represent the great diversity that exists under the neurodiversity umbrella? And if not, might the policy or practice changes inspired by the research risk further marginalizing certain segments of the neurodiverse community?
Returning to our family connections to neurodiversity we see such a diverse array of neurodivergent individuals with multiple different diagnosis, and when we try to formulate a single research question that would meaningfully address the specific term associated with each diagnosis we are unable to do so. Why? We suspect that it is because of the huge degree of variance in the different labels associated with neurodiversity (not to mention the within group variation of individuals with the same diagnosis). Put another way, even with such similar family circumstances and genetic makeups, our neurodiverse family members often seem too diverse to fit under a single umbrella—at least for research purposes. From an advocacy perspective, we can see the utility of banding together under the “big tent” of neurodiversity to push for general awareness and acceptance of our differences. However, as research tends to focus on very specifically and narrowly defined topics, we can not help but feel that when we are researching autism we should name “autism” and when we are researching ADHD we should name “ADHD” and thus be clear about the scope of our research, who is represented in it, and who is outside of it.
The complexity of this question is further compounded by disciplinary and cross-cultural contexts. In the United States, the term neurodiversity is more commonly used and embraced within the social sciences, disability studies, and advocacy communities, whereas medical and legal fields tend not to use the term and instead rely on diagnostic or clinical terminology. Internationally, the uptake of the term varies as well; some countries and research communities have quickly adopted the neurodiversity framework, while others continue to operate primarily from medicalized or deficit-based models. These disciplinary and cross-cultural variations further complicate the question of when, how, and for whom the neurodiversity framing is most useful.
What does this mean for future research in Adult Education and HRD? We expect that future researchers will continue to find it useful to frame their research around neurodiversity while other work will focus on more specific forms of neurodiversity, and we stand in solidarity with both approaches. Recognizing that work under each framing can be used to forward the causes of justice and inclusion.
