User:FormallyTrainedHomunculus/Neurodiversity

Neurodiversity and education
Diversity in the education system is not always observed from a neurodiverse perspective. There are several models that are used to understand disability. One is the medical model of disability that views people with disabilities as needing to be treated or cured. Another is the social model of disability putting emphasis on the way that society treats people with disabilities. The social model argues that people with disabilities experience more difficulties from society than the disability alone.

Nachman and colleagues reviewed several articles published by 2-year community colleges and found some discrepancies in the way that they perceived and categorized "disabled" students and "non-disabled" students. They found that all of the articles were attempting to normalize disability. Many of them put distinct separation between typical and atypical learners as well as their potential academic achievement. Nachman also found that many of the articles showed a lack of autonomy for neurodivergent students. They had little power in regard to academic choices and classroom management.

Another study explored minority stress through the lens of transgender and gender diverse students who were neurodivergent. The researchers found that these students were likely to experience multiple forms of oppression rather than just one. Some of those types include gender related oppression and oppression related to their neurodivergence. The students who had a higher level of minority stress due to stigma awareness were expected to have lower academic performance and higher risk of psychological distress.

Career preparation that is specifically targeted for neurodivergent students is lacking. There are several programs,  such as supported employment,  that exist to help assist neurodivergent individuals in finding and obtaining a job but not many of those programs exist within schools. This can make it difficult for neurodivergent students to find a career path that they feel is attainable for them.

Universities and educational institutions could constitute a place of fulfillment and development for neurodivergent people. According to an article published in 2023, universities and post-secondary establishments would show more tolerance towards neurodivergent people. Furthermore, this kind of environment gives rise to independence and autonomy and can thus lead to kindness and understanding. This is why implementing strategies based on the concept of compassion could be an asset for educational institutions and therefore mask this difference that exists between people. Neurodivergent students in higher education also report a need for non-academic supports, such as social mentorships and resources for strength-based interventions in order to further assist them in social aspects of college life.

Neurodiversity and the workplace
Neurodivergent individuals are subjected to bias when applying and interviewing for job positions. Specifically, neurodivergent individuals can have their social engagement style compared to neurotypical individuals, which can affect their ability to obtain a job position. Stigmas against neurodivergence (especially against autistic individuals) and cognition challenges in social situations can hinder an individual's ability to perform well in a traditional job interview.

In a systematic review that considered developmental dyslexia (DD) as "an expression of neurodiversity", it was suggested that neurodiversity is not yet an established concept in the workplace, and therefore, support from social relationships and work accommodations is minimal. Furthermore, another systematic review that focused on pharmacological and combined pharmacological/psychosocial interventions for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder found that there were few workplace-based intervention studies, and suggested that additional research needs to be conducted to figure out how to best support neurodivergent employees in the workplace.

A study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic suggested that neurodivergent individuals would benefit from remote work as it allowed them to engage in their interests, but that social engagement is still necessary for productivity and performance. Another study supported these findings and stressed the need for redesigned work and social conditions to be more inclusive for individuals with autism.

Therapy
Neurodiversity and the role it plays in therapeutic settings has been a central focal point in recent years. Many therapists and mental health professionals have pushed for more inclusive psychotherapeutic frameworks appropriate for neurodivergent individuals. One example is neurodivergence-informed therapy, which reframes dysfunction as interconnectedness among society rather than strictly individual, advocating for acceptance and pride in the neurodiversity community, and the push for therapists to pursue humility regarding the knowledge and education associated with individuals who identify as neurodivergent. Similarly, neurodiversity affirming therapy supports neurodivergent differences, rather than viewing them as something that should be "cured", and to offer ways to support the individual with difficult areas, while still appreciating their needs and strengths.

' In addition to support from neurodiversity advocates for affirming therapies, concerns have been raised about the role of certain approaches such as Applied Behavior Analysis. Concerns from neurodiverse individuals and activists stem from the tendency of these interventions to set a goals-focused approach that centers societal participation rather than the goals of the individual. In this sense, concerns from neurodivergent individuals tends to argue that these interventions aim to enforce conformity with expectations of society rather than addressing the needs of the person receiving the treatment. While a large body of research on the role of ABA seems to support its efficacy in long term outcomes, there remains concerns with the measures used in determining social validity by those who have raised these concerns. In addition to advocates from within the neurodivergent community, some behavioral analysts have begun to reconsider the role of these therapies with the context of a neurodiversity framework. '

Therapeutic programs and interventions are also being investigated for the neurodivergent community. Self-determination programs to help neurodivergent individuals achieve goals in their life has been founded to be successful, with neurodivergent participants finding it to be "appropriate, acceptable, and feasible". Various approaches (e.g., eye-tracking, longitudinal data, computational modeling) in understanding perceptual decision-making in neurodivergent individuals are also being studied and the implications it may have in the therapeutic environment in working with the neurodivergent population.

Another form of therapeutic intervention in that has been investigated in neurodivergent individuals is the use of Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NDBIs). NDBIs have been shown to have positive effects on language and social-communication while, at the same time, respecting individuals’ needs and autonomy. One of the key goals in this type of intervention is putting the focus of therapy on the neurodivergent individual themselves in the creation of intervention goals, procedures, and outcomes. In doing so, they are likely to be seen as more acceptable, useful, and effective to that individual.

Reception and Controversy
Further information: Controversies in autism § Advocacy initiatives

The neurodiversity paradigm is controversial in autism advocacy. The dominant paradigm, the medical model of disability holds that neurodivergent individuals have medical conditions which should be treated. ''' The neurodiverse paradigm, under the understanding that differences in neural function are natural variations in function, suggests that not all conditions that would be classified as neurodiverse need medical intervention. A prevalent criticism about application of the neurodiversity paradigm to autism comes from the understanding that even with a framework of natural variance that neurodiversity includes, individuals with functional difficulties would continue to have challenges. Some critics of the neurodiversity paradigm, such as family members that are responsible for the care of an autistic individual, consider it detached from the needs of individuals that would continue to be functionally disabled through the frame of natural variation. '''

A common criticism is that the neurodiversity paradigm is too widely encompassing and that its conception should exclude those whose functioning is more severely impaired. In response, autistic advocate Nick Walker suggested that neurodiversity refers specifically to "pervasive neurocognitive differences [...] intimately related to the formation and constitution of the self", in contrast to medical conditions such as epilepsy.[undue weight? – discuss]

"Critiques of the Neurodiversity Movement", a 2020 review, raised two concerns regarding the term "Neurotypical":


 * Many people who do not have an autism diagnosis have autistic traits (known by researchers as the "broad autism phenotype"), so there is no clear bimodal distribution separating people with and without autism. In reality there are not two distinct populations, one "neurotypical" and one "neurodivergent".
 * "Neurotypical" was a dubious construct, because there is nobody who could be considered truly neurotypical, and there is no such standard for the human brain.