The neurodiversityparadigm is a framework for understanding human brain function that considers the diversity within sensory processing, motor abilities, social comfort, cognition, and focus as neurobiological differences. This diversity falls on a spectrum of neurocognitive differences.[1] The neurodiversity paradigm argues that diversity in neurocognition is part of humanity and that some neurodivergences generally classified as disorders, such as autism, are differences and disabilities that are not necessarily pathological. Neurotypical individuals are those who fall within the average range of functioning and thinking.
The neurodiversity movement started in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the start of Autism Network International. Much of the correspondence that led to the formation of the movement happened over autism conferences, namely the autistic-led autreat, penpal lists, and Usenet. The framework grew out of the disability rights movement and builds on the social model of disability, arguing that disability partly arises from societal barriers and person-environment mismatch, rather than attributing disability purely to inherent deficits.[2][3] It instead situates human cognitive variation in the context of biodiversity and the politics of minority groups.[4][5][6] Some neurodiversity advocates and researchers including Judy Singer and Patrick Dwyer argue that the neurodiversity paradigm is the middle ground between a strong medical model and a strong social model.[7][8][9]
Neurodivergent individuals face unique challenges in education and the workplace. The efficacy of accessibility and support programs in career development and higher education depends on the individual.[10][11] Social media has introduced a platform where neurodiversity awareness and support has emerged, further promoting the neurodiversity movement.
The neurodiversity paradigm has been controversial among disability advocates, especially proponents of the medical model of autism, with opponents arguing it risks downplaying the suffering associated with some disabilities (e.g., in those requiring little support becoming representative of the suffering caused by the disability, thereby making it more difficult to seek desired treatment[12]), and that it calls for the acceptance of things some wish to be treated for.[12][13][14][15][16] In recent years, to address these concerns, some neurodiversity advocates and researchers have attempted to reconcile what they consider different seemingly contradictory but arguably partially compatible perspectives, and some researchers have advocated for mixed or integrative approaches that involve both neurodiversity approaches and biomedical interventions or advancements.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
^Sarrett JC (April 2016). "Biocertification and Neurodiversity: the Role and Implications of Self-Diagnosis in Autistic Communities". Neuroethics. 9 (1): 23–36. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9247-x.
^Dwyer P, Gurba AN, Kapp SK, Kilgallon E, Hersh LH, Chang DS, et al. (September 18, 2024). "Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions". Autism. doi:10.1177/13623613241273029. PMID39291753.
^Heraty S, Lautarescu A, Belton D, Boyle A, Cirrincione P, Doherty M, et al. (August 2023). "Bridge-building between communities: Imagining the future of biomedical autism research". Cell. 186 (18): 3747–3752. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.08.004. PMID37657415.