The Neurodiversity Paradigm: Core Principles and Theoretical Framework
Apr 10
/
Amanda Armstrong, M.Ed
In the blog post "The Neurodiversity Paradigm: Core Principles and Theoretical Framework," the author explores the Neurodiversity Paradigm as a complex framework meant to contextualize the varying ways the human brain functions. This paradigm is not merely about accommodations like noise-canceling headphones in public spaces; it represents a broader movement towards demystifying disability and fostering an accepting culture around neurological differences, including both neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals.
The blog distinguishes between "neurodivergent" and "neurodiversity," clarifying that while the former refers specifically to individuals whose cognitive functions deviate from societal norms, the latter encompasses the rich spectrum of human cognitive functioning that includes neurotypicality as a standard.
By delving into concepts such as acceptance of diversity, the social model of disability, and the inherent strengths of neurodivergent individuals, the authors argue for a cultural shift that prioritizes self-advocacy and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Ultimately, this blog serves as a call to action for society to embrace neurodiversity, creating inclusive environments that enhance understanding and support for neurodivergent individuals while also recognizing the diverse needs of neurotypical individuals.
The blog distinguishes between "neurodivergent" and "neurodiversity," clarifying that while the former refers specifically to individuals whose cognitive functions deviate from societal norms, the latter encompasses the rich spectrum of human cognitive functioning that includes neurotypicality as a standard.
By delving into concepts such as acceptance of diversity, the social model of disability, and the inherent strengths of neurodivergent individuals, the authors argue for a cultural shift that prioritizes self-advocacy and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Ultimately, this blog serves as a call to action for society to embrace neurodiversity, creating inclusive environments that enhance understanding and support for neurodivergent individuals while also recognizing the diverse needs of neurotypical individuals.
What is the Neurodiversity Paradigm?
The Neurodiversity Paradigm is a complex framework created to explain and contextualize the neurodiversity of the human brain. It goes much deeper than special education programs, noise canceling headphones, and sensory nights at the movie theater. The Neurodiversity Paradigm seeks to create a neurodiversity-affirming culture through its main tenants which include:
Neurodiversity is a concept that recognizes and values the diversity of human cognitive functioning, suggesting that neurological differences, such as those seen in conditions like autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and others, are a natural occurrence in the human species rather than deficits or disorders to be cured (Harvard Health Publishing, 2021).
This perspective emphasizes that neurological diversity contributes to the overall richness of human experience and can offer unique strengths and abilities (Harvard Health Publishing, 2021).
In April’s feature story, I go into detail about the etymology of the term neurodiversity. You can check that out by going here: The Neurodiversity Paradigm: A Critical Examination of the Etymology and Context of the Term
- Acceptance of Diversity: The view that neurological variations, such as autism, ADHD, and dyslexia, as natural human differences rather than deficits. This promotes acceptance and appreciation of diverse ways of thinking and being (Armstrong, 2010).
- Social Model of Disability: The paradigm shifts the focus from individual impairments to societal barriers. It argues that challenges faced by neurodivergent individuals often stem from a lack of accommodation and understanding in society, rather than from their neurological differences (Barnes & Mercer, 2003) .
- Value and Strengths: Neurodiversity emphasizes the unique strengths and contributions of neurodivergent individuals. It encourages leveraging their abilities rather than focusing solely on challenges or impairments (Armstrong, 2010).
- Self-Advocacy and Empowerment: It promotes the importance of self-advocacy and the right of neurodivergent individuals to speak for themselves, make their own choices, and participate fully in society (Autistic Self Advocacy Network [ASAN], 2019) .
- Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The paradigm calls for cooperation among various fields, including psychology, education, and policy-making, to create more inclusive environments and practices that accommodate neurodiverse individuals (Graham & Spandagou, 2011).
- Focus on Well-being: It highlights the importance of mental health and well-being, advocating for support systems that cater to the needs of neurodivergent individuals (Pinals, Hovermale, Mauch, & Anacker, 2022).
Neurodiversity is a concept that recognizes and values the diversity of human cognitive functioning, suggesting that neurological differences, such as those seen in conditions like autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and others, are a natural occurrence in the human species rather than deficits or disorders to be cured (Harvard Health Publishing, 2021).
This perspective emphasizes that neurological diversity contributes to the overall richness of human experience and can offer unique strengths and abilities (Harvard Health Publishing, 2021).
In April’s feature story, I go into detail about the etymology of the term neurodiversity. You can check that out by going here: The Neurodiversity Paradigm: A Critical Examination of the Etymology and Context of the Term
Neurodiversity vs. Neurodivergent
The concept that the world must become more neurodiverse-affirmative is controversial. Part of the issue is the interchangeability of the terms. As terms “neurodiversity” and “neurodivergent” are often used, but they mean very different things (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025)
“Neurodiversity” is meant to be used as a term that relates to the multitude of diversity in cognitive function in humans in general (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025). It is an all encompassing term to say each person is made differently and is more of a term used regarding social interactions (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025).
The term “neurodivergent” is more of a medical term that describes differences in the cognitive function of the brain that leads to deviations of social norms (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025).
In other words ... It's complicated.
“Neurodiversity” is meant to be used as a term that relates to the multitude of diversity in cognitive function in humans in general (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025). It is an all encompassing term to say each person is made differently and is more of a term used regarding social interactions (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025).
The term “neurodivergent” is more of a medical term that describes differences in the cognitive function of the brain that leads to deviations of social norms (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025).
In other words ... It's complicated.
Social Model and Medical Model Compared
So what we end up with is two paradigms: one for a social model and one a medical model. They both give unique perspectives on how to understand and respond to neurological differences and disabilities.
The social model views neurological differences as natural variations of the human brain, advocating for acceptance and inclusion rather than pathologizing these differences. (Botha et al., 2024). The medical model views disability primarily as a deficiency or dysfunction within an individual’s body or mind, often requiring diagnosis, treatment, and medical intervention (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025).
The focus between the two models is also different in that the neurodiversity paradigm emphasizes strengths and abilities associated with neurodiverse conditions (e.g., autism, ADHD), promoting the idea that these variations contribute to human diversity, while the medical model emphasizes the limitations and challenges associated with disabilities, framing them as disorders that need to be cured or managed.
The implications of the social model also differ from the medical model. The social model encourages society to adapt to diverse neurological needs, advocating for educational and workplace accommodations that empower neurodiverse individuals (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025). The medical model often leads to a reliance on professionals to determine the best course of action, which can overshadow the perspectives of individuals with disabilities and their lived experiences (Oliver, 1996).
The social model views neurological differences as natural variations of the human brain, advocating for acceptance and inclusion rather than pathologizing these differences. (Botha et al., 2024). The medical model views disability primarily as a deficiency or dysfunction within an individual’s body or mind, often requiring diagnosis, treatment, and medical intervention (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025).
The focus between the two models is also different in that the neurodiversity paradigm emphasizes strengths and abilities associated with neurodiverse conditions (e.g., autism, ADHD), promoting the idea that these variations contribute to human diversity, while the medical model emphasizes the limitations and challenges associated with disabilities, framing them as disorders that need to be cured or managed.
The implications of the social model also differ from the medical model. The social model encourages society to adapt to diverse neurological needs, advocating for educational and workplace accommodations that empower neurodiverse individuals (Shaw, Brown, Jain, et al., 2025). The medical model often leads to a reliance on professionals to determine the best course of action, which can overshadow the perspectives of individuals with disabilities and their lived experiences (Oliver, 1996).
So where does "neurotypical" fit in?
Neurotypicality refers to individuals whose neurological development and functioning align with what is considered typical or standard within a society. This concept primarily arises in contrast to neurodiversity, which encompasses individuals with neurological variations such as autism, ADHD, and dyslexia (Silberman, 2015) . The social construction of neurotypicality involves understanding how societal norms and expectations shape perceptions of what is considered "normal" neurological functioning (Harvard Health Publishing, 2021).
Neurotypicality is often defined by societal norms that dictate expected behaviors, cognitive functions, and emotional responses (Hacking, 2009). These norms are shaped by cultural, educational, and institutional frameworks that guide how individuals are perceived and treated based on their neurological makeup.
Neurotypicality is often defined by societal norms that dictate expected behaviors, cognitive functions, and emotional responses (Hacking, 2009). These norms are shaped by cultural, educational, and institutional frameworks that guide how individuals are perceived and treated based on their neurological makeup.
Criticisms and Challenges
Neurotypicality is often viewed as superior, reinforcing the idea that neurodivergent individuals are 'less than' or require treatment to bring them closer to social norms. This hierarchy can lead to discrimination, exclusion, and a lack of support for neurodivergent individuals, as their needs may be overlooked or undervalued.
The labeling of individuals as neurotypical or neurodivergent can impact their access to resources, opportunities, and social acceptance. The labels have historically created a group of “haves” and “have nots.” The Social Darwinism of it all is hugely problematic, which may contribute to the increase in diagnosis. I stand firm in the idea that the numbers related to a dramatic rise in the number of Americans with neurodiversity or neurodivergent labels is impacted by the neurodivergent-affirming cultural changes, beginning with inclusion education practices as part of 2008’s IDEA legislation.
Another challenge is that the concept of neurotypicality is not universal; what is considered neurotypical in one culture may not be viewed the same way in another. This variability illustrates that neurotypicality is socially constructed and heavily influenced by cultural beliefs and values regarding mental health and behavior.
The labeling of individuals as neurotypical or neurodivergent can impact their access to resources, opportunities, and social acceptance. The labels have historically created a group of “haves” and “have nots.” The Social Darwinism of it all is hugely problematic, which may contribute to the increase in diagnosis. I stand firm in the idea that the numbers related to a dramatic rise in the number of Americans with neurodiversity or neurodivergent labels is impacted by the neurodivergent-affirming cultural changes, beginning with inclusion education practices as part of 2008’s IDEA legislation.
Another challenge is that the concept of neurotypicality is not universal; what is considered neurotypical in one culture may not be viewed the same way in another. This variability illustrates that neurotypicality is socially constructed and heavily influenced by cultural beliefs and values regarding mental health and behavior.
Future Directions
The neurodiversity paradigm presents significant ethical implications for both research and practice within fields such as psychology, education, and healthcare. By advocating for the acceptance and appreciation of neurological diversity, it raises critical questions about how individuals with neurological differences are understood, treated, and included in societal frameworks.
The neurodiversity paradigm emphasizes the right of neurodivergent individuals to make choices regarding their lives and treatments. Ethical research and practice must prioritize informed consent, acknowledging the autonomy of neurodivergent individuals to speak for themselves and determine their needs. This challenges traditional models that may prioritize expert judgment over individual perspectives and preferences.
Ethical research practices must include neurodivergent individuals in the research process, not just as subjects but as active collaborators. Much like the automobile industry started testing with female test crash dummies in 2022, research must include individuals with neurodiversity (Epker, 2023). This helps ensure that research questions are relevant and that the findings help to demystify disabilities. There is an ethical obligation to avoid exploiting neurodivergent individuals for data collection without their input or benefit (Cascio, Weiss, & Racine, 2020).
With this paradigm we are challenging the traditional notion of neurotypicalism as the standard and are increasing the awareness and acceptance of individuals who are wired differently (Armstrong, 2010).
Ethical considerations arise regarding how societies define 'normal' behaviors and cognitive functions. Research and practice must move away from pathologizing neurodivergent individuals and instead focus on strengths and abilities, promoting a strength-based approach to create a culture that “normal” includes neurodiversity-affirming practices. Ethical implications include the duty to ensure equitable access to support and resources for neurodivergent individuals. Practitioners and researchers must advocate for policies and practices that reduce barriers and promote inclusion. This involves recognizing that societal structures can either facilitate or hinder the flourishing of neurodivergent individuals. Inclusion education is an example of a new neurodiversity-affirming policy that is meant to encourage inclusion. While off to a rocky start with a slight interruption due to a worldwide pandemic, inclusive educational practices are key to creating more knowledge, acceptance, and understanding.
You may have noticed my more serious tone with this blog, which is because of the importance of the neurodiversity paradigm. The mission statement of Insight Education Academy is “to provide strategies grounded in research, shared with compassion, and tailored to your unique journey.” We are a part of the neurodiversity paradigm seeking to change the world’s understanding of the societal model related to the term “neurodiversity.” We are not doctors. We are not psychologists; however, we are part of the neurodiversity community that is working to redefine the social norms.
The neurodiversity paradigm emphasizes the right of neurodivergent individuals to make choices regarding their lives and treatments. Ethical research and practice must prioritize informed consent, acknowledging the autonomy of neurodivergent individuals to speak for themselves and determine their needs. This challenges traditional models that may prioritize expert judgment over individual perspectives and preferences.
Ethical research practices must include neurodivergent individuals in the research process, not just as subjects but as active collaborators. Much like the automobile industry started testing with female test crash dummies in 2022, research must include individuals with neurodiversity (Epker, 2023). This helps ensure that research questions are relevant and that the findings help to demystify disabilities. There is an ethical obligation to avoid exploiting neurodivergent individuals for data collection without their input or benefit (Cascio, Weiss, & Racine, 2020).
With this paradigm we are challenging the traditional notion of neurotypicalism as the standard and are increasing the awareness and acceptance of individuals who are wired differently (Armstrong, 2010).
Ethical considerations arise regarding how societies define 'normal' behaviors and cognitive functions. Research and practice must move away from pathologizing neurodivergent individuals and instead focus on strengths and abilities, promoting a strength-based approach to create a culture that “normal” includes neurodiversity-affirming practices. Ethical implications include the duty to ensure equitable access to support and resources for neurodivergent individuals. Practitioners and researchers must advocate for policies and practices that reduce barriers and promote inclusion. This involves recognizing that societal structures can either facilitate or hinder the flourishing of neurodivergent individuals. Inclusion education is an example of a new neurodiversity-affirming policy that is meant to encourage inclusion. While off to a rocky start with a slight interruption due to a worldwide pandemic, inclusive educational practices are key to creating more knowledge, acceptance, and understanding.
You may have noticed my more serious tone with this blog, which is because of the importance of the neurodiversity paradigm. The mission statement of Insight Education Academy is “to provide strategies grounded in research, shared with compassion, and tailored to your unique journey.” We are a part of the neurodiversity paradigm seeking to change the world’s understanding of the societal model related to the term “neurodiversity.” We are not doctors. We are not psychologists; however, we are part of the neurodiversity community that is working to redefine the social norms.
Empty space, drag to resize
References
Armstrong, T. (2010). Neurodiversity: Discovering the extraordinary gifts of autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other brain differences. Da Capo Lifelong Books.
ASAN (Autistic Self Advocacy Network). (2019). Self-Advocacy [Webpage]. https://autisticadvocacy.org/what-is-autism/self-advocacy/
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2003). Disability. Polity Press.Botha, M., Chapman, R., Giwa Onaiwu, M., Kapp, S. K., Stannard Ashley, A., & Walker, N. (2024). The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism, 28(6), 1591-1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241237871 (Original work published 2024)
Cascio, M. A., Weiss, J. A., & Racine, E. (2020). Person-Oriented Research Ethics to Address the Needs of Participants on the Autism Spectrum. Ethics & human research, 42(5), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500064
Epker, E. (2023, September 12). Fasten your seatbelts: A female car crash test dummy represents average women for the first time in 60 years. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/evaepker/2023/09/12/fasten-your-seatbelts-a-female-car-crash-test-dummy-represents-average-women-for-the-first-time-in-60-years/
Graham, L. J., & Spandagou, I. (Eds.). (2011). Inclusive education: A global agenda. Routledge.
Hacking, I. (2009). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.
Harvard Health Publishing. (2021, November 23). What is neurodiversity? Harvard Health Blog. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-neurodiversity-202111232645
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Macmillan.
Pinals, D. A., Hovermale, L., Mauch, D., & Anacker, L. (2022). Persons With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the Mental Health System: Part 1. Clinical Considerations. Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 73(3), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900504
Shaw SCK, Brown MEL, Jain NR, et al. When I say … neurodiversity paradigm. Med Educ. 2025; 59(5): 466-468. doi:10.1111/medu.15565
Silberman, S. (2015). NeuroTribes: The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Avery.
ASAN (Autistic Self Advocacy Network). (2019). Self-Advocacy [Webpage]. https://autisticadvocacy.org/what-is-autism/self-advocacy/
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2003). Disability. Polity Press.Botha, M., Chapman, R., Giwa Onaiwu, M., Kapp, S. K., Stannard Ashley, A., & Walker, N. (2024). The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism, 28(6), 1591-1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241237871 (Original work published 2024)
Cascio, M. A., Weiss, J. A., & Racine, E. (2020). Person-Oriented Research Ethics to Address the Needs of Participants on the Autism Spectrum. Ethics & human research, 42(5), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500064
Epker, E. (2023, September 12). Fasten your seatbelts: A female car crash test dummy represents average women for the first time in 60 years. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/evaepker/2023/09/12/fasten-your-seatbelts-a-female-car-crash-test-dummy-represents-average-women-for-the-first-time-in-60-years/
Graham, L. J., & Spandagou, I. (Eds.). (2011). Inclusive education: A global agenda. Routledge.
Hacking, I. (2009). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.
Harvard Health Publishing. (2021, November 23). What is neurodiversity? Harvard Health Blog. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-neurodiversity-202111232645
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Macmillan.
Pinals, D. A., Hovermale, L., Mauch, D., & Anacker, L. (2022). Persons With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the Mental Health System: Part 1. Clinical Considerations. Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 73(3), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900504
Shaw SCK, Brown MEL, Jain NR, et al. When I say … neurodiversity paradigm. Med Educ. 2025; 59(5): 466-468. doi:10.1111/medu.15565
Silberman, S. (2015). NeuroTribes: The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Avery.
Copyright © 2025 Insight Education Academy
Thank you for being a member
Use Code EDU0225
Created with
