Peer-reviewed journal (academic evidence).
https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/135/1/108/5913187
As part of the early research and discovery phase of GDE751, I decided to develop a broader understanding of neurodiversity before exploring specific project opportunities. Following feedback from both peers and tutors, I am consciously trying to avoid narrowing my focus too quickly and instead build a strong research foundation that can inform future decision-making.
One of the first papers I explored was Neurodiversity at Work: A Biopsychosocial Model and the Impact on Working Adults by Nancy Doyle (2020). Although the paper focuses primarily on employment and workplace inclusion, it provides a useful introduction to the concept of neurodiversity and the wider theoretical discussions surrounding it.
A key takeaway from the paper was understanding that neurodiversity refers to the natural variation in how human brains function, process information, learn, communicate, and experience the world. Rather than viewing neurological differences solely through a medical lens, neurodiversity recognises conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and others as part of normal human variation.
The paper highlighted how traditional approaches have often focused on deficits, impairments, or challenges. In contrast, the neurodiversity paradigm encourages a broader perspective that also acknowledges strengths, differences, and alternative ways of thinking.
One of the most interesting areas of the paper was its discussion of different ways neurodiversity can be understood.
The medical model tends to focus on diagnosing and treating individuals, often framing neurodivergent people in terms of what they struggle with or what needs to be fixed.
In contrast, the social model suggests that many difficulties arise not solely from the individual but from environments, systems, and structures that have not been designed with diverse needs in mind.
This distinction immediately felt relevant to design practice. Rather than asking how an individual can adapt to a system, the question becomes:
How can systems, services, information, and experiences be designed to accommodate a wider range of people?
As someone whose previous projects have focused heavily on accessibility and inclusion, this perspective strongly resonates with my own interests and values.
Another aspect that stood out was the discussion around strengths-based approaches. The paper challenged the tendency to focus exclusively on barriers and instead highlighted strengths often associated with neurodivergent individuals, including creativity, problem-solving, pattern recognition, innovation, and alternative perspectives.
This was particularly interesting because it aligns with a growing movement away from deficit-based narratives and towards a more balanced understanding of neurodivergent experiences.
Although this paper was not directly related to travel, it has provided an important foundation for my developing research area. At this stage, I am interested in exploring the intersection between neurodiversity and travel. Still, before investigating travel-specific experiences, I felt it was important to understand the theoretical framework underlying neurodiversity.