How Do We Study Autism As Neurodiversity?: A Review of Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Findings, and Implications for Future Research

Background: Neurodiversity is quickly becoming a household word, with the publication and dissemination of NeuroTribes (Silberman, 2015). Despite some theoretical examination, this concept has received little empirical evaluation.

Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to review the literature on neurodiversity with three primary aims:

1. Explore definitions of neurodiversity and emerging themes
2. Review empirical studies of neurodiversity and consider future research directions
3. Consider implications for viewing autism as neurodiversity (i.e., a culture, minority; Baker, 2006; Jaarsma & Welin, 2012; Lim, 2015) 

Methods: A review of the term “neurodiversity” was conducted by searching PsycInfo and Web of Science. Only journal articles were included. Ten journal articles were uncovered in PsycInfo (n = 10), and forty-eight in Web of Science (n = 48), with 6 duplicates (n = 6). Articles were included if they discussed the theory of neurodiversity or were a direct empirical study of neurodiversity. Eighteen articles were further excluded for: not English language (n = 5), not specifically ASD (n = 6), not specifically about neurodiversity (n = 3), a response to another writing (n = 4). A total of thirty-five articles were then reviewed (N = 35). The first and second author independently reviewed half of the articles for themes and empirical findings. Theoretical themes were then discussed and finalized jointly.

Results: Theoretical papers (n = 26) broadly highlighted these common themes: application to a topic or field, the idea of autism from a medical vs. social perspective, autism as natural genetic variation, and the rights, advocacy, and justice issues surrounding autism and neurodiversity. Empirical papers (n= 9) sought to evaluate neurodiversity in these ways: teaching/pedagogy for neurodiverse individuals, terminology in describing autism, culture and neurodiversity, review of career interests, and visuospatial creativity as neurodiversity.

Conclusions: Themes of neurodiversity included applications, the medical vs. social model, natural variation, and rights, advocacy, and justice. While some empirical work has been conducted surrounding this concept, a great deal more research is needed to further examine the implications of conceptualizing neurodiversity as a minority or culture. Future directions of this work may include the following questions: What are methods for measuring neurodiversity – how is autism a genetic variant of typical functioning? What are the implications of dividing autism by high- and low-functioning – those who are neurodiverse and those who are neurodisabled? If autism is a culture, how then do current practices represent ethnocentrism in attempting to “change” people with autism to “make them fit” into majority culture? Can minority theories be applied to better understand the experience of neurodiverse people?