Is it enough for the occupational therapy profession to just focus on clients and their occupation goals? Barriers faced by people with disability, are complex and multi-faceted and go beyond specific individual solutions. So, at what point should occupational therapists engage in issues of social justice? And can universal design thinking help?
Disability studies emphasise the dignity, worth and equal rights of all people and draws attention to the discrimination faced by people with disability.
Two researchers, one from social science and one from occupational therapy, offer an interesting discussion on this topic. They argue that occupational therapy practice and research should incorporate social justice and universal design perspectives. They add that they should join with the disability community to call for a more just society. One way to do this is to also promote the principles of universal design.
Incorporating social justice and universal design perspectives more effectively requires a change of mindset and ways of working. Expanding Person-Centred and Person-Environment theories to understand social and structural barriers is one solution. The occupational therapy profession has the potential to pave the way for more equitable services and policies.
Socio-political influences have gained increased attention within the occupational therapy profession. Critical disability studies question prevailing assumptions about disability and how disabling ideologies and practices are perpetuated in society. A universal design approach aims to address issues of inclusion and justice.
This paper discusses how the tenets of critical disability studies and universal design can contribute to occupational therapy practice and research.
We provide ideas on how practice can be guided by the tenets of disability studies and universal design to promote social equity.
Incorporating both perspectives in occupational therapy practice and research requires a change in mindset and ways of working. Occupational therapy knowledge needs to be expanded to scrutinise disabling hindrances hidden within social and structural spaces, and implemented in services.
We recommend working with disability communities to raise awareness and combat disabling barriers at various level of society.
“Mind the Gap” on public transport has an additional meaning for people with disability and other marginalised groups. It’s not just the barriers and inconveniences, it’s also the indignity that people experience. Gaps result from barriers in infrastructure, communication systems and attitudes. Consequently, not everyone is able to maintain their dignity on buses and trains.
More than 30% of people with disability in Australia experience difficulties using public transport. Consequently, this impacts on their ability to participate in the economy and society.
Perceptions of dignity are about not feeling discrimination, shame or humiliation. Positive experiences of acceptance and inclusion help maintain dignity even when things might not work well. A research study in Queensland explored these issues with people with disability.
The researchers found that dignified mobility experiences were not isolated or momentary. Rather, entire travel journeys that were accessible, inclusive, equitable, promoted independence and enhanced self-worth contributed to dignified mobility experiences. And it wasn’t all about infrastructure.
Interpersonal interactions experienced in physical, digital and communication spaces across travel journeys were just as important as physical barriers. A sense of dignity came from feeling respected, appropriately helped and being treated like anyone else. Both tangible and intangible aspects of the whole journey need consideration. The researchers point to a universal design approach.
Universal design, access to accessible and inclusive information, and empathic attitudes help create dignified mobility experiences for people with disability when using buses and trains.
The research paper provides key information for a universal design approach to dignified journeys. They include detail on accessible and inclusive information and the need for empathic systems and staff.
When transport systems are accessible and inclusive, people with disability experience dignity. When personal mobility is constrained by physical, social and/or communication, barriers, people with disability experience exclusion and risk to their dignity.
This study explored the role of trains and buses in an Australian city in supporting access, inclusion and dignified mobility experiences for people with disability. Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants with diverse visible and invisible disabilities.
The findings highlight the complexities involved with navigating public transport systems while maintaining dignity. Accessible and inclusive information, infrastructure, and interactions with staff ensured dignified mobility experiences.
Dignified mobility experiences represent a complex and dynamic interaction between personal experiences and preferences, impairment-specific requirements, transport infrastructure, interpersonal experiences, and information inclusivity.
Designing bus transit with universal design
Norway has a long-held commitment to universal design across all sectors. However, with the best will in the world the concept is still poorly understood in transport infrastructure. When Trondheim initiated its new rapid bus transit system, universal design underpinned the design parameters. But designing bus transit infrastructure requires some joined up thinking and joined up standards.
The Trondheim infrastructure experience
The case study of Trondheim in Norway shows how the best laid plans can go awry if there isn’t joined up thinking at the planning stage. Once this was realised the next step was finding ways to remedy the situation. That’s because Trondheim replaced their whole fleet with the new metro buses.
At a late stage in the planning process, with construction of the stations and delivery of the buses well underway, it was discovered that the stations and the buses had been built to different accessibility standards.
Photo of the Trondheim bus transit
In a conference paperJacob Deichmann outlines the issues and the different ideas and lists them in a handy table. All the stations were built to Norwegian State guidelines for accessible design. The “kneeling” buses were designed and built in Belgium. But there was a big gap between bus and kerb edge. The size of the gap also depended on the skill of the driver in getting as close as possible to the kerb.
Once this discrepancy was discovered advocacy groups complained to the media and to politicians. The response was that they met the access standards, but manual flip ramps would be added. However, this does not provide equitable access as someone has to deploy the ramp taking up valuable travel time. And efficient travel times was a key element of the system.
The paper has a chart giving an overview of the different remedies suggested based on product research. It lists the various ramp systems, gap-fillers and bus pads at kerbside. The chosen solutions were training of drivers in the short term. In the medium term there was to be a trial of motorised ramps, the bus pad and a guiding system. Longer term solutions were the gap-filler method and raised platforms.
When standards and guidelines aren’t enough
Both the platform designer and the bus manufacturer followed valid guidelines and best practice. The lack of consistency in the guidelines makes it difficult for non experts in universal design to make the best choices. In the worst case scenario, following standards can prevent a universal design approach.
More training on universal design is required at the planning and procurement stage. The underlying concept of providing an equitable and accessible means of transport needs to be fully understood.
Talking about inclusive built environments is easy, but how do you do it well? With different stakeholders involved in the design and delivery of a project, how do you get them to join up their thinking to approach projects with the same inclusive mindset? An inclusive building design guide focused on the processes is the way to do it.
The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) created an Inclusion Charter in 2020. One of their commitments was to embed inclusive design in all projects. But architects cannot work in isolation – all stakeholders need to take on an inclusive mindset. As an extension to their Charter, they created the Inclusive Design Overlayto the RIBA Plan of Work. It seeks to bring all stakeholders on board for every part of the project.
“The role our built environment has on each and every person’s life cannot be overestimated. This Inclusive Design Overlay provides a consensus across built environment professions for how we accelerate inclusion and value diversity.” Robbie Turner, Director of Inclusion and Diversity, RIBA.
Twenty-five different built environment professions provided insights and best practice content for the overlay. The inclusive design tasks apply to the client, project management team, design team, construction team and asset management team.
There are three core parts: the Client Team, the Design Team and the Construction Team. In addition, they recommend having an inclusive design consultant, or champion, with specialist inclusive design expertise. As Australian access consultants know, the earlier they are consulted the better. So it is good to see RIBA encouraging involvement from the outset of the project. The overlay also encourages the project team to look beyond building regulations.
Good design must be fundamentally inclusive just as it should be sustainable and resilient. Inclusive design should be elevated to the same level as sustainability.
The overlay details the roles of each team and stages of work. It begins with setting the project brief and budget through concept design, construction and handover to asset managers. There are separate sections for each of the key teams and what they should do and understand at each stage.
Enablers
The document includes a section on inclusive design enablers. These are actions that support the development of an inclusive design strategy, and implementation of inclusive design across the delivery of a project. Each sub-section has clear information on the diversity of the population and different levels of capability, and how to approach them in design and construction processes.
There are several good guides on planning and designing cities and suburbs. But how many are unwittingly based on ableist and ageist polices and plans? If they are based on a narrow body type of “young, adult, fit white male” then they are likely ableist. This narrow view makes other bodies and minds invisible and therefore excluded. Lisa Stafford challenges the planning community to be change-makers in creating inclusive suburbs for mind and body.
“Realising this vision will require a drastic shift in the way we think, in our planning and design systems, and in our ways of working.”
Stafford’s article in Cities People Love, explains how ableism plays out in policies and planning systems. When change doesn’t come from those in power, the advocacy has to come from citizen action. Citizen advocacy for disability inclusion has been running for 30 years, and the fight continues. If planners take a universal design mindset, so much more could change for a significant proportion of the population.
5 Elements of inclusive planning
Here is a brief overview of Stafford’s key elements for inclusive planning.
Human diversity is valued and embedded in all aspects of planning. To be inclusive, planning must that humans are diverse in both mind and body across the lifespan.
All people centred public planning processes and decision (urban governance). Collaborative processes encompass a diversity of minds, bodies, ages and languages for all people to be actively involved.
Inclusively designed spaces and infrastructure are assets of a community with equity at the core. This means moving beyond compliance with minimum standards to a performance-based planning approach informed by universal design.
Planning for connectedness between nature, people and place. Infrastructure such as footpaths, seating, public spaces, community green spaces, and treed streets, supports encounters and gatherings that help build and strengthen a sense of place and belonging.
Vibrant places and experiences. Vibrant places give a sense of fun, friendliness, creativity, and participation. A diverse cross-section of people are attracted to vibrant and accessible places where they feel comfortable to stay longer.
The lived knowledge and experience of affected citizens should guide design processes. Everyone learns from co-design processes.
Stafford invites planners to reflect on the five elements and become leaders and change-makers. “Planning for equity and inclusion in our suburbs is the only way we can create fairness of access, and uphold everyone’s rights to live in the suburbs and participate fully in everyday life.”
Business and academic research on inclusive workplace cultures typically focus on race and/or gender. Disability and neurodivergence are often overlooked or excluded from this research and resulting policies and practices. A universal design approach is the way to take a holistic look at the issues and solutions for neurodiversity in the workplace. Indeed, these are good workplace practices for everyone. That’s what universal design is about.
Workplace employee groups can help marginalised groups feel heard, but they can also place an additional burden on individuals to seek workplace improvements.
A short paper by Preziosa and Hill uses the 7 principles of universal design as a framework for implementing inclusive practices. The authors present the 7 principles in a matrix, and used four principles, briefly outlined below, as an example:
Equitable Use: Avoid the need for people with disability to have separate service or experiences. Eliminate label-based inclusion, such as targeted hiring programs for autistic people. This segregates employees into specific fields and requires them to self-identify any “special” condition they have.
Flexibility in Use: Build in preferences outside the norm such as playback speed options for training videos. Offer to be flexible and acknowledge that individual differences are expected and welcome.
Simple and Intuitive to Use: Avoid unnecessary complexity and repetition of processes, tools, and webpages.
Tolerance for Error: Allow room for mistakes and edits. Ensure digital form, tools and software allow for review and correction.
The authors claim that neurodiverse employees who receive support services show higher retention rates, and most required less than 4 support hours a month. In addition, many benefitted from support with problem solving and organising their work.
Universal design and employment scenarios
The author’s matrix consists of 7 universal design principles and 6 workplace elements. They are: Designing, Hiring, Contracting, Training, Performance Review and Wellbeing. The information is also good for managing groups and teams outside the workplace environment.
To disclose or not to disclose? That is always the question for anyone with any kind of disability in the workplace. Many job candidates hesitate to disclose their neurotype because they worry about stigma and negative reaction. Nevertheless, disclosing neurodivergence can improve equity in recruitment, selection, and retention. But employers and other staff need to heed their language and tendency to label people.
Minor changes such as modifying language on a disclosure form can increase the likelihood of disclosure of a disability. But this is not enough to address structural challenges neurodivergent individuals face at work. Two questions then:
How and when should organizations facilitate disclosure of neurodivergence?
What can organisations do, beyond facilitating disclosure, to create inclusive and supportive environments for neurodivergent employees?
In a recent paper authors recommend a universal design approach to guide employment policies and practice. Attention to disclosure language, balancing disclosure and universal support, and training for managers and supervisors are key points. Of course, while a universal design approach is highly beneficial to people disability, it improves outcomes for all employees.
“By aligning inclusive language, policies, and everyday practices, organizations can create environments where neurodivergent employees feel valued, supported, and empowered to thrive— regardless of whether they choose to disclose.”
Neurodivergence in the workplace
People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, anxiety or depression can feel stressed and uncomfortable. Consequently they are less productive. Employers could be missing out by not considering neurodiversity in the workplace.
As many as one in eight people are neurodivergent according to an article in The Fifth Estate. COVID led to sterile environments. Offices removed their fabric coverings and other soft elements to make cleaning easier. But it makes spaces noisy, clinical and uninviting.
Even working from home isn’t the answer for everyone. Just because you can work from home doesn’t mean you should. Long hours in a hard chair at the kitchen table isn’t optimum.
The article discusses colour, signage, the size and shape of spaces, textiles and plants. Even games such as Foosball tables have a place.
The solutions are in design of the office, the office culture and inclusive policies. When it comes to neurodivergence we have to ask, what is neurotypical anyway? Workplace designs that consider diversity are good for everyone.
Intersectional stigma for autistic people at work found that white autistic people in western countries are more likely to have jobs. But they were more likely to be designed for autistic people. They also found that feeling that someone cares was more important than any adjustments for support. There are other resources availableas well.
From Margins to Mainstream: Embracing Neurodiverse Needs for an Inclusive Workplace. The authors review and critique existing literature on communication styles, sensory environments, social expectations, and discrimination. They focus on autism spectrum condition, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia. They apply the neurodiversity framework to challenge traditional notions of workplace ”professionalism” and productivity.
“This groundbreaking book combines the lived experience with academic rigor, innovative thought leadership, and lively, accessible writing. To support different types of readers, academic, applied, and lived experience content is clearly identified, helping readers choose their own adventure.”
Many parents would like their children to travel to school independently, but they think it’s unsafe to do so. Taking a universal design approach, if we improve pedestrian infrastructure for children, we also make it better for everyone. Safe children means safe adults.
Children are more likely to live closer to school than their parents will live to their workplaces. But do they feel safe to walk? However, walking or riding to school is at the same time workers are driving off to their workplaces – often in a hurry.
Prue Oswin’s survey of parents on the Sunshine Coast revealed their perceived and real barriers to safe walking for their children. Crossing roads without designated crossings was of the most concern. Crossing at roundabouts and roads without a pedestrian refuge island was also concerning. Zebra crossings were the most favoured by parents especially if they were raised. These are the same issues for people with disability and older people.
Pedestrian hot spots tell one story, pedestrian absence tells another. This is where statistical data do not measure journeys not made. Consequently, relying on such data is misleading in the quest to get more people walking and wheeling in their neighbourhoods.
The Safe System approach is about preventing traffic crashes resulting in serious injury. The basic premise is that if a driver or pedestrian makes a mistake, a serious accident is less likely. Oswin’s study shows that there are gaps in this approach that traffic engineers need to address.
Spin offs
The most obvious spin-off from more walking are the health benefits which lead to better concentration and wellbeing. Also if children get walk to and from school independently, parents, usually women, are able to increase their workforce participation. Other beneficiaries are people with mobility impairments, and people who are blind or have low vision. Parents themselves might also be encouraged to walk more.
Designing for people at either end of the age bell curve means that everyone else is included. Consequently, the often forgotten group, children, are key piece of the inclusion jigsaw.
The proportion of children walking or riding to school is dwindling in Australia, while pedestrian injuries are among children’s leading causes of death. A mixed-methods survey was conducted on children and parents of two schools in Australia to understand travel behaviours and attitudes towards active transport to school (ATS).
Results showed that road safety perceptions predicted ATS, unlike distance to school and stranger danger. The design of the routes to school was found to be crucial in facilitating ATS, to address the fear of road danger. Practical implications include the need for more controlled pedestrian crossings and protected bike paths.
Architectural competitions can bring design quality to cities. But the design competition process misses the opportunity to engage deeply with the public. And that means social value could be missing too. The process of community driven design competitions addresses unequal access to design decisions and cultivates social ties.
“Design has a role in building social capital. During a design competition, there are opportunities for placemaking and designing in social connectors.” Georgia Vitale
Image: 11th Street Bridge Park. Courtesy OMA + OLIN
Community consultation takes many forms, some of which are perfunctory while others are more meaningful. That is, meaningful for the public – the users of places and spaces. The judges of architectural design competitions are other architects. So how does community consultation and engagement fit into this process?
Vitale’s article explores the drawbacks of limited or no meaningful public participation or interaction with users of the building or place or other stakeholders in design competitions. This is at a time for an increased need for social capital to be included in the planning and design process for more socially sustainable communities.
Social infrastructure, shared spaces and streets, and public transport are the outputs of design. However, community engagement with diverse community members helps create new connections. it also encourages people to become involved in the lives of their neighbours. That’s the social benefit of community driven design competitions.
Case Study
Vitale uses 11th Street Bridge Park DC as a case study. The goal is to knit together the two communities on either side of the river. And that’s without displacing people in the marginalised neighbourhoods on the eastern bank.
Are pedestrians getting a fair share for walking and wheeling on our streets? Or are they forced to drive because footpaths are either not present or poorly maintained? Lack of seating, shade, and too few pedestrian crossings all add to a preference to take the car. More significantly, poor pedestrian infrastructure prevents people with disability and older people from making the journey at all.
Most people value walkability, yet most communities underinvest in pedestrian facilities. We need more investment in footpaths and pedestrian crossings to better serve community.
The percentage of total trips made by walking by country
People who cannot drive or own a car are most disadvantaged because they have little choice but to walk or wheel. If the infrastructure is unsupportive or feels unsafe, many will avoid an area or just not make the journey. Consequently the prevalence of disability is invisible to planners.
Assumptions about older people all living in aged care also makes invisible the 95% of older people living in the community. However, plans or designs recommended as suited to aged care locations can, and should, be applied throughout the community.
Why people don’t walk
A graph from Litman shows the reasons people don’t walk by age group. The graph supports statistics of prevalence of health issues in the community. While it is expected that older age groups would cite health as a reason for not walking more, 25-30% of younger age groups also cite health.
Not feeling safe due to traffic is another factor with an average of 40% saying this is an issue. The lower statistical count on this question for older people is likely due to only making journeys where they feel safe as they are more risk averse.
Walkability solutions
The solutions rest on a connected network of footpaths and to services such as shops, cafes, and medical centres within walking distance. These footpaths need to clearly separate pedestrians from cyclists and motor vehicles. Shared paths are particularly problematic for older people, people with dogs, and people with vision and hearing impairments.
The title of the Todd Litman article isFair share for walking. He mentions universal design standards for footpaths that are smooth and wide. They also need kerb ramps compliant to standards for all pedestrians. Cost arguments need to be met with counter arguments of the human and environmental cost of not creating pedestrian environments that encourage walking and wheeling.
The research paper mentioned in the Litman article is titledOverview of Walking Rates, Walking Safety and Government Policies to Encourage More and Safer Walking in Europe and North America. European countries have shown the way on how to encourage walking and wheeling.
From the abstract
This paper documents variation in walking rates among countries, cities in the same country, and in different parts of the same city.
Our international analysis shows that walking rates are highest for short trips, higher for women than for men, decline with increasing income, and remain constant as age increases. Walking fatality rates are much higher in the USA compared with the other countries we examined, both per capita and per km walked.
Government policies for increasing walking rates and improving pedestrian safety include: integrated networks of
safe and convenient walking infrastructure;
roadways and intersections designed for the needs of pedestrians;
land-use regulations that encourage mixed uses and short trip distances;
lower city-wide speed limits and traffic calming in residential neighborhoods;
reduced supply and increased price of parking;
traffic laws that give priority to pedestrians;
improved traffic education for motorists and non-motorists;
tax surcharges on large personal vehicles; and
strict enforcement of laws against drink and distracted driving.
How about introducing architecture to children and teenagers in school as a means of getting better architecture? Teachers can use architecture as a learning resource for other subjects as well. De-a Arhitectura Association thinks bringing teenagers and architecture together is a good idea. It’s also a good way to give voice to children and teenagers and what they want from the built environment.
De-a Arhitectura has a network of built environment professionals who share knowledge with children and teenagers.
Image from a De-a Arhitectura workshop.
The way professionals understand the built environment and the way the public see it are quite different. One group often left out of consultations is teenagers. Consequently, De-a Arhitectura set about finding out how to give voice to teens.
Using workshop methods, participants analysed their city for facilities and how it feels to be in the city. One workshop focused on the experience of pushing a stroller, being in a wheelchair, and pulling luggage. The research paper describes the workshop methods used in the project.
The follow up project provided a way to raise awareness that teenagers perspective should matter. Teenagers have a language of their own and the researchers found they had energy and innovative ideas. They engaged younger and older people in their lives in the stories they create. And they provided a fresh angle or perspective on things.
The researchers conclude that teenagers have their own visions and benefits from interacting with public space and the activities they carry out.
Teenagers may not be the most obvious left-out category of people, but in the design and use of public spaces they are often left out. Public space belongs to everyone, yet teenagers have few ways make their voices heard. How do they demand their own space, which represents their identities and offers a creative and comfortable environment in which they can socialise and evolve?
De-a Arhitectura Association began to develop the Urban Up educational program in 2016. It was a starting point in diversifying its portfolio with teenagers, aiming to be inclusive of all categories and backgrounds.
Throughout the past years, Urban Up has tried to hear their wishes and expectations from the built environment and the public spaces they use. We used different hands-on activities (extracurricular) and with a design thinking methodology for improving their schools.
Trying to constantly find better communication channels and to reduce the generational distances, we started a fellowship program for students in different study fields connected to the built environment (multidisciplinary teams), in order to bring teenagers and young adults together.
The students became mentors for the high school students, in workshops they co-designed, aiming to engage them in better understanding and using public spaces. It is our belief that the more aware and involved teenagers are today, the more active and responsible citizens they will be tomorrow.
Mollie Pittaway gives a neurodiverse perspective on the world in a Medium magazine article. She describes 10 ways autistic people are different to neurotypical people. She makes it clear in the beginning that she doesn’t speak for all autistic people. Pittaway just wants to emphasise cultural differences. Understanding these differences are useful in the workplace for managing and interacting with staff who might be autistic.
Understanding how autistic or neurodiverse people see the world and process information is key to being inclusive in any situation. They don’t need to be the odd one out.
We all have different ways of experiencing the world and interacting with one another. However, sometimes it is difficult to empathise with each other when our experiences are quite different. Pittaway presents ten differences to neurotypical people are briefly outlined below. See the article in Medium for a more detailed explanation.
10 ways autistic people are different
Small talk: This can feel fake or unimportant, because autistic people want to talk about deeper, meaningful things. Consequently, they don’t join in conversations about pop culture, TV shows or sports games. This means they appear shy or aloof.
Eye contact: Eye contact is considered “normal” and courteous to neurotypical people. Pittaway says she loses her train of thought when looking at someone. This makes it look like they are bored or indifferent.
Directness and empathy
Directness: Neurotypical people can deal with ambiguity in communication rather than saying exactly what they are looking for. Pittaway says she needs as much clarification as possible and finds it difficult not to be direct. This can be perceived as being blunt or rude.
Empathy: When someone is upset many neurotypical people listen and talk things through. Pittaway, however, says her way is to talk about her similar experiences as a way to show she understands. Finding the right words is difficult. However, this can be viewed as moving attention to themselves and therefore being selfish.
Social situations
Social connection: Pittaway says that in comparison to neurotypical people she has a low “social battery”. This means she doesn’t seek frequent social connection such as going to the pub or a party. Recharging her social battery might mean refusing invitations to events.
Interests: Differences are less obvious when it comes to talking about interests. Some autistic people can remember a wide range of facts, but these facts can be boring to others. Everyone has the ability to bore people with their special interests.
Spontaneity: Last minute plans or sudden changes in plan can be challenging for autistic people. Changing routines is difficult and can take extra energy when recharging is required.
Sensory overload: Background noise, traffic, nightclubs and crowding make it a struggle for autistic people to concentrate. They can’t filter the information in the same way as others and just try to hide their distress.
Morals and conforming
Hypermoralism: Autistic people see things in black and white whereas neurotypical people see nuance in things. Pittaway says holding the high moral ground is one of the best traits because they want the best for others. However, they might be seen as the “goody two-shoes” and their concerns are ignored.
Conforming: Going along with the status quo is difficult because autistic people need to understand why things need to be done a certain way. That can make for a lot of questions. This makes it inconvenient for those at the top because it feels like their authority is being questioned.
Pittaway concludes by saying there isn’t any right or better way to communicated. But it is important to respect differences.
As stated above, this is one person’s experience of being autistic. However, the autism spectrum captures many types of neurodiversity. This is one view. The title of the article is 10 Significant ways autistic people are different to neurotypical people. You will have to sign in or sign up to Medium to read it.
Neuroinclusion and disability inclusion: are they the same?
Ainslee Hooper raises this question in relation to the workplace – is it the same conversation or a separate one? Some see them as the same while others feel neurodivergent experiences need a distinct spotlight. But does it matter?
In many ways, neurodivergence is very different from other types of disability which means people face different barriers to inclusion.
Neuroinclusion is about recognising, valuing, and accommodating neurodivergent individuals whose brains process information differently from what society considers “typical.”
Disability inclusion focuses on removing the physical, systemic, and attitudinal barriers to participating in everyday activities. This includes the environments and systems that create exclusion. But not all neurodivergent people identify as having a disability.
When separating the two is a problem
It reinforces ableism. Neuroinclusion is often framed as the “positive” side of inclusion—celebrating strengths and innovation. Disability inclusion faces stigma, stereotypes, and assumptions of deficit.
It creates gaps. Organisations may provide supports such as flexible work, while neglecting other crucial accessibility needs. This fragmented approach rarely leads to genuine inclusion.
It leaves people out. Many neurodivergent people also live with physical disabilities, chronic illness, or mental health conditions. Separating the two risks missing intersectional experiences.
Psychologist John Elder Robison provides a personal view of neurodiversity in his writings. A review of his book in the Psychology Today blog outlines his experience. A key point is that if one in seven children in the US are now identified as neurodiverse, is this really an exception to “normal”? The title of the book is Look me in the Eye: My Life With Asperger’s.
