Jenan Hasan
Research Mentor: Sandy Zalmout
Mentor Department: ICPSR, ISR
Author(s): , Jenan Hasan, Kathleen Ignatoski, Sandy Zalmout
Session: Session 2 (10:00 AM – 10:50 AM)
Presentation Type: Poster 139
Abstract
Recent studies increasingly conceptualize neurodiversity as a valuable dimension of cognitive diversity in workplaces and higher education, with a focus on inclusion, innovation, and strengths-based approaches. Although this perspective marks a significant difference from deficit-oriented models, much of the literature remains constrained by its reliance on conceptual frameworks, short-term outcome measures, and institution-centered perspectives. Consequently, critical structural dynamics influencing neurodivergent participation and well-being are often insufficiently examined. This review synthesizes interdisciplinary research from organizational studies, higher education, neuroscience, and human–computer interaction to critically assess the practical operation of dominant neurodiversity frameworks. Drawing on peer-reviewed empirical studies, theoretical reviews, and policy analyses, three recurring gaps were identified. First, neurodiversity is regularly conceptualized as a homogeneous category, obscuring important differences in cognitive profiles, accommodation needs, and institutional compatibility. Second, the emotional, cognitive, and administrative labor required of neurodivergent individuals to secure access, referred to as access labor, remains under-theorized, despite its centrality to participation. Third, there is a lack of longitudinal evidence on the sustainability of inclusion initiatives, particularly regarding burnout, career stagnation, and cumulative stress. By integrating biopsychosocial models with emerging concepts such as access labor and institutional accommodation failure, this review contends that contemporary inclusion discourse often prioritizes organizational performance and symbolic inclusion at the expense of neurodivergent well-being. Rather than effecting structural transformation, many inclusion efforts implicitly transfer responsibility for accessibility to individuals through self-advocacy and adaptation. The review concludes by advocating for accountability-driven inclusion models that center lived experience, differentiate support requirements across neurocognitive profiles, and assess long-term outcomes. This reframing is necessary to advance neurodiversity research in the workplace beyond aspirational inclusion narratives toward empirically grounded and ethically sustainable practices.
