'if You're Asking for My Diversity, You're Asking for All of Me': Neurodivergent Higher Education Faculty Experiences in the U.S

Background:

Neurodivergent individuals are those whose brains engage the world in different ways that what society includes as typical, and can include autistic people, those with ADHD, OCD, PTSD, MDD, GAD, TBI, SPD, and other mental health diagnoses. As with disabled individuals, they are often un- or underemployed, may need additional accommodations at places of employment, and experience high rates of ableism. Academia, while beginning to do a better job in supporting neurodivergent students, has often left neurodivergent faculty out of conversations regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as how they can be supported in succeeding while being their full authentic selves. Extant research on neurodivergence, ableism, and accommodations in higher education focuses primarily on the needs and experiences of students, further leaving neurodivergent faculty out of the conversation. This phenomenological study begins to bridge that divide by exploring the lived experiences of neurodivergent faculty in higher education in the United States.

Methods:

Participants were recruited virtually in 2021 and 2022 using flyers and social media. Anyone who was a full or part time faculty member in higher education and was comfortable engaging in English or ASL was eligible. The lead author conducted 23 qualitative semi-structured interviews over Zoom, spanning 60-90 minutes each, and used the cleaned transcripts to create an initial codebook. Together, both authors coded the transcripts and organized these codes into themes using a virtual tabletop themeing method.

Results:

After immersion in the data and codes, we structured the codes into seven themes: 1) neurophobia as systemic oppression (with sub-themes obstruction of access and accommodations, and impact of enforced masking); 2) navigating the nexus of identities; 3) complexity of outness; 4) labors of communication; 5) “neurophoria” and the brilliance of neurodivergence; 6: community connection and advocacy, and 7) shared wisdom. Additionally, the concept of extra or additional labor was evident across all themes and stood out as a shared experience of all participants. Across disciplines (i.e., STEM, humanities, social sciences), type of faculty role (i.e., tenure track, clinical, adjunct), type of institution (i.e., public vs. private, size), and a variety of other identities (i.e., race, gender, age), there were many shared experiences by participants.

Implications:

Our participants’ collective experiences included both challenges and obstacles they faced in Academia, and the brilliance and strength they saw within their own neurodivergence. Institutions of high education needs to be better prepared to support neurodivergent faculty (in addition to neurodivergent students), including moving towards models of universal design, removing barriers for accessing accommodations, dismantling ableist obsessions with neurotypical communication styles, and recognizing how well these faculty are able to connect with students through modeling authenticity and creative ways of being, and using skills like hyperfocus to be successful in multiple measurements of productivity.