The term “neurodivergent” is being used more and more often in everyday conversation, on social media and even in scientific research.
Authors
- Alessio Bellato
Senior Lecturer, Children and Young People’s Mental Health, University of Southampton
- Samuele Cortese
NIHR Research Professor, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Southampton
Neurodivergent is usually used to described a brain that works differently from what is seen as typical. For instance, it is often used to describe someone with a diagnosis of autism or ADHD.
But there’s an inherent problem with the term: it’s hard to say exactly what counts as “typical” brain function. Our new review shows that even academics can’t agree on what neurodivergent actually means, or which clinical diagnoses it covers.
We looked at 134 scientific studies that included over 151,000 participants. The majority of this research was conducted in the UK and US. These studies mainly looked at people who were labelled “neurodivergent” or “neurodiverse”, exploring their education and work experiences, mental health, identity and social connection, diagnosis and traits, support, and the views of families and caregivers.
Our aim was to find out what specific diagnoses, if any, were reported in relation to the terms “neurodivergent” and “neurodiverse”.
We found almost 20 different diagnoses linked to neurodivergence and neurodiversity. Autism and ADHD came up most often, followed by dyslexia and dyspraxia. However, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and neurological disorders such as stroke or traumatic brain injury also appeared.
One in five studies used the words without naming any diagnosis at all. A third simply asked people to self-identify as “neurodivergent”, rather than using a formal clinical assessment.
Some studies mixed up “neurodivergent” and “neurodiverse” – even though the two mean different things.
Neurodiversity refers to the natural variation in how people’s brains work, think and learn. Because of this, it’s incorrect to call one person “neurodiverse” or “with a neurodiversity”. Neurodiversity describes a group, not any one person, so it’s correct to say our society is neurodiverse .
Neurodivergent, on the other hand, describes one person whose brain works differently from what is considered typical. But the problem is that currently, nobody agrees on how to define or measure this difference .
Although doctors can use established criteria to test for specific conditions such as ADHD or autism, there’s no test that can separate what is “neurodivergent” from what is “neurotypical”.
Why these findings are important
For decades, people with neurodevelopmental conditions – especially autistic people – have campaigned for better rights and inclusion. As part of the neurodiversity movement , they called for terminology that they deemed would be kinder to describe conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia.
Words such as neurodiverse and neurodivergent grew out of this campaign, and are now used in schools, workplaces and the media. People often use them instead of naming specific diagnoses.
Conditions such as autism and ADHD are grouped together in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) – the manual psychiatrists use to reach a diagnosis for a specific person – as they often overlap. Many people with ADHD are also autistic , for example.
But each condition has its own specific clinical features and diagnostic criteria. This is why using “neurodivergent” as a catch-all term, even in research, can cause problems.
The support that helps an autistic person is not the same as the support that helps someone with anxiety. These are different conditions with different needs. Broad labels can hide this important detail.
In clinical research, the vagueness of using such a broad label as “neurodivergent” causes important problems, too. If a study only says its participants are “neurodivergent”, it’s hard to interpret the results. This particularly matters when that research later shapes clinical care.
Vague terms may cause problems for the public, as well. For example, a workplace policy built around “neurodivergence” might sound inclusive – but it can end up too broad and unhelpful if it doesn’t target specific needs.
There’s a stigma risk as well. It’s true that “everyone is neurodiverse”, since all our brains work differently. But this can inadvertently slide into “everyone is a bit neurodivergent” – and then it’s a short step into “we’re all a bit ADHD” or “a bit autistic” .
This kind of thinking is unfair for people with an established diagnosis. Their day-to-day experience is often very different from that of people without a diagnosis.
“Neurodiversity” and “neurodivergence” are useful for describing an identity and experiences that people may share. There is nothing wrong with someone saying “I think I am neurodivergent”. But in clinical research, healthcare and education, clear and recognised clinical diagnoses serve people better than catch-all labels.
