The neurodiversity paradigm can be seen as a shift in thinking that embraces the diversity of minds, brains, and neurocognition, and affirms variation as natural and valuable (Pellicano and den Houting, 2022; Walker, 2021). Like other paradigm shifts, this change in perspective can be challenging to fully understand in the context of education, research, and social thinking. Here, the issue is further compounded as the term 'neurodiversity' has broad scope. Numerous definitions of neurodiversity as a movement, a research field, and a framework or paradigm exist (Dwyer, 2022; Milton et al., 2020). These three aspects can be distinguished in the following way: (i) the neurodiversity movement encompasses social, advocacy, and political movements advocating for the rights, inclusion, and acceptance of neurodivergent people; (ii) the neurodiversity research field is a largely academic field studying, for instance, psychological and social aspects of neurodiversity; (iii) the neurodiversity paradigm or framework is a conceptual framework that at its core challenges medical or deficit-based views of neurodiversity, and instead asserts that neurocognitive differences should be seen as natural variations (see Table 1). Moreover, these three aspects can overlap and intersect: for instance, research and activism can intersect in areas such as disability rights, mental health advocacy, social justice, and equity, diversity and inclusion efforts in education and in the workforce (Clouder et al., 2020; Dwyer, 2022; Manalili et al., 2023). Unless specifically discussing one of these aspects, here we generally adopt the term 'neurodiversity paradigm' as a broader idea, encompassing ways of thinking applicable to both the neurodiversity movement and the research field.

Building on this pluralistic perspective, it is important to note that neurodiversity is not limited to cognitive differences, nor to specific named neurotypes (i.e., commonalities in neurological makeup and functioning; Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021), though it does include named neurotypes like autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (also known as attention dysregulation hyperactivity development [Dwyer et al., 2024] or variable attention stimulus trait [Hallowell and Ratey, 2022]), and dyslexia, among others. Neurodivergent people typically exhibit neurocognitive variations outside the perceived norm (Walker, 2021). However, defining and interpreting neurodiversity remains complex. On the one hand, neurodiversity is viewed through a theoretical lens as a social ecology of mental functions (Chapman, 2021). On the other hand, researchers compare neurodiversity to biodiversity in nature (Silberman, 2015). Further, people may consider neurodiversity to be a political label, as opposed to a biological label (Chapman, 2021; Ne’eman and Pellicano, 2022) or conversely, a biological impairment as opposed to 'normal' or neurotypical behavior. Nevertheless, both arguments could undermine neurodivergent people, as neurodivergence can thus be seen as a fictitious identity or a condition defined only by limitations, overshadowing the unique traits of individuals. The debate continues to be contentious, and various definitions have been proposed and debated.

In 2015 Kassiane Asasumasu coined the term neurodivergent and defined it as 'neurologically divergent from typical' (Asasumasu, 2015): this definition was broad and inclusive, capturing all such forms of divergence, explicitly noting autism, epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cluster headaches, Chiari malformation, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, apraxia, cerebral palsy, dyspraxia, various mental health conditions, and neurological differences for which no formal diagnosis has been defined (e.g., aphantasia). Other complementary work has similarly proposed or considered broad views including, for example, dementia (Silberman, 2023), as well as mental health conditions like depression and anxiety (Mellifont, 2019). However, other have insisted that neurodivergence primarily encompasses neurodevelopmental disabilities like autism, dyslexia, and dyspraxia (Walker, 2021) or limit consideration to neurocognitive functions (Shah et al., 2022), even while aware of Asasumasu’s intentions (e.g., Monzel et al., 2023). This lack of consensus, driven by differing theoretical lenses and contexts, underscores the complexity of defining and interpreting neurodivergence within a social construct.

Another challenge for researchers and educators wishing to learn more about neurodiversity, and to implement neurodiversity-affirming practices, is a lack of reliable information about the topic, the presence of misinformation, and the persistence of misunderstandings about neurodiversity (den Houting, 2019). Research studies may employ the rhetoric of the neurodiversity movement without a full understanding of its key assumptions (Neumeier, 2018), perhaps in part due to lack of well-curated accessible resources. Additionally, researchers might mistakenly believe that the neurodiversity movement only applies to neurodivergent people with lower support needs (often referred to as 'high-functioning'), excluding those they consider 'severe', 'profound', 'high support needs' or 'low functioning' as 'too disabled' (Jaarsma and Welin, 2012; note that uncritical use of some of these terms has also been critiqued as ableist within the neurodiversity movement; Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Natri et al., 2023). This can result in the exclusion of neurodivergent people from discussions, despite their valuable perspectives (see Silberman, 2023 for an argument on how neurodiversity promotes listening). Such exclusion may stem from the assumption that certain groups lack the capacity for self-advocacy or are not given the opportunities needed to be heard. Alternatively, exclusion can result from a kind of disqualification through presumption of low support needs on the basis that neurodivergent people do not face barriers to make their opinions and needs known (Montgomery, 2005). In some cases, the same people have experienced exclusion or invalidation both for being presumed too disabled and for being presumed not disabled enough (Montgomery, 2001; Baggs, 2005). These challenges, combined with limited awareness of diverse neurodivergent groups and a lack of knowledge on implementation strategies, hinder the necessary identification and adoption of inclusive, robust practices in the behavioural, cognitive, and social sciences, as well as in educational and clinical work.

In order to foster interest in neurodiversity initiatives, as well as promote more robust research in the field, an understanding of key ideas and debates, how they have developed, and current perspectives is needed. To facilitate this, an accessible overview introducing key concepts about neurodiversity is crucial. Such an overview should move the field forward and ensure that neurodiversity is promoted and further develops as a paradigm (e.g., Crüwell et al., 2019; Kathawalla et al., 2021; Kalandadze and Hart, 2024). To this end, we have created an introductory reading list. We developed this list collaboratively amongst a community of neurodivergent and neurotypical researchers, guided both by research expertise and lived experience. We first made an open call for reading recommendations on neurodiversity, targeting thoughtful and impactful literature. The open call was primarily shared through the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT) platform, an online collaborative community focused on promoting open scholarship, as well as advancing research and education about neurodiversity. Recommendations were welcomed from both academic and non-academic sources, with no exclusion criteria for specific topics or formats. Contributors were asked to explain the strengths of their suggestions, and each recommendation was independently verified by a second researcher. Three of the authors then analysed the papers and categorised them into themes, and the final list of papers and themes was refined through further discussions. The selection process aimed to prioritize materials that were educational, thought-provoking, and broadly relevant (see Methods for more details). In the end we agreed to have nine themes, with two articles for each theme (see appendix 1 for a list of the 18 articles). The articles also vary regarding their own use of language, viewpoints regarding neurodiversity, and positionality (see Box 1).

The first six themes – the history of neurodiversity; ways of thinking about neurodiversity; the importance of lived experience; a neurodiversity paradigm for autism science; beyond deficit views of ADHD; and expanding the scope of neurodiversity (by, for example, including dyslexia, dyspraxia, developmental language disorder, and stuttering) – are intended to provide a fundamental understanding of neurodiversity. Rather than being completely discrete and self-contained, these themes often cover related topics, albeit from different perspectives and with different examples. For instance, commonalities emerge regarding the importance of neurodiversity affirming models over deficit-based views, the use of appropriate language, the need to expand definitions of neurodiversity (for instance, to be inclusive of mental health), and the need for inclusion and centring of lived experience. The final three themes – anti-ableism; the need for robust theory and methods; and integration with open and participatory work – are different in that they are oriented towards the future and include actionable steps for future work.

Overall, we hope that this reading list will be a resource that can support readers in obtaining a fundamental and holistic understanding of neurodiversity, and that it will also encourage researchers to apply more rigorous and destigmatizing scientific practices.

This paper aims to serve as an accessible resource for researchers, educators and students to better understand neurodiversity and to support neurodivergent people. It is important to develop neurodiversity, both as a paradigm and social movement, and in rigorous and inclusive ways. Past research, carried out with poor theoretical and methodological approaches, has likely reinforced harmful stereotypes (e.g., erroneous claims that autistic people lack theory of mind; Gernsbacher and Yergeau, 2019). The eradication of such harmful stereotyping and discrimination will remain challenging as long as existing barriers, including a lack of awareness and knowledge about neurodiversity and its heterogeneity, persist. To address these challenges, we have curated and presented different key papers that contribute and advance our understanding of neurodiversity. We hope researchers, educators, scholars, activists and neurodiversity allies build on this effort and further promote a positive and productive neurodiversity field.

This reading list focused not only on what neurodiversity is or has been historically (e.g., medical classifications of disorders), but what it can be. We envision a future where everyone is welcomed, valued, and listened to, where weaknesses are acknowledged without pathologization, and strengths are celebrated, leading to continual improvement and positive growth.

In August 2023, we published an open call for contributions via the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT) community channels and personal contacts (available on OSF: https://osf.io/c98sk/). We believe FORRT reaches a fairly diverse audience of people working in and outside of academia, interested in open scholarship and neurodiversity. Some of our collaborators were already involved in other FORRT projects, whereas others were familiar with FORRT but not involved in this community; some collaborators also joined after hearing about our open call from their own networks. At a broad level, our approach entailed collecting reading recommendations and then double-checking and categorizing all recommended materials.

We were interested in finding thoughtful and robust literature that could provoke discussion, reflection and interest in the field of neurodiversity. We asked people suggesting materials to prioritize articles they were particularly impressed by, that had changed or challenged their thinking, or considered to be fundamental contributions to the field. We did not apply any exclusion criteria regarding the specific field, topic, research method, design, or population studied. We welcomed both empirical (e.g., original research) and theoretical (e.g., position statements) pieces of work. We anticipated that the majority of articles included would be peer-reviewed manuscripts. This was not a formal inclusion criterion, as discussions on neurodiversity also originate outside the academic sphere and continue to be a vibrant topic of conversation beyond formal research settings (Zisk, 2023). We aimed to be as inclusive as possible in order to not miss any potentially relevant content (e.g., working papers, viewpoints, newspaper articles, blogs, manifestos, letters and correspondence). This was done with the particular consideration that position statements, co-produced work, or work with embedded mutuality practices may not always be presented in 'traditional' academic formats.

Contributors who submitted reading materials for consideration for the annotated reading list were asked to provide an explanation for their suggestions, describing the strengths or contributions of the specific papers or materials they recommended. People could suggest work that they authored or contributed to. However, to reduce conflict of interest and bias, authors were required to disclose this information. Each paper suggestion was double-checked by a second, independent researcher, who verified citations, content explanations, and optionally provided further comments or personal reflection about the importance of the proposed reading material.

Three of us (MZ, MME, AZ) then examined all papers, as well as the reasons for recommendations, and any comments, and provided a first thematic categorization of all papers. This categorization was discussed with the entire team. After feedback and discussion with all collaborators, the themes were finalized. Then, we discussed as a group which two papers to highlight per theme. Given the existing varying research specialties in our groups, team members who had research expertise, lived experience, and/or interests relevant to each theme volunteered to finalize the selection of papers and draft a statement of the importance of the reading materials for the corresponding theme. We had on average 2–3 volunteers who worked on drafting each theme directly. For each theme, we recommended that 1–2 papers are highlighted but instructed volunteers that they could select more. We originally suggested 1–2 papers as a guiding number, bearing in mind that other annotated reading lists have typically highlighted and annotated one key topic per theme (e.g., Kalandadze and Hart, 2024; Crüwell et al., 2019). We also worried that selecting many more papers per theme could lead to a potentially overwhelming reading list for readers.

Overall, we prioritized papers that we, as a group, considered were fundamentally important, educational, and thought-provoking. We considered papers to have high educational value if they (for example) provided clear overviews of a given topic, if they covered a debate or traced a given idea or concept’s historical origin comprehensively and with appropriate context. In order to consider texts as educational, we took into account how accessible they were for readers, especially potential newcomers to neurodiversity. With this in mind, we wanted texts to be intelligible to a wider audience and not exclusively geared to experts. We were still inclusive of texts with some degree of jargon or specific terminology as long as on the whole, the core messages were clear, and texts were informative. Regarding the importance of texts, we looked out for work that made a clear contribution with relevance to neurodiversity (as a paradigm, a research field, or a social movement). Given the variety of types of texts and topics, importance could relate to different aspects, such as changing discourse, clarifying a concept, challenging a widely held belief, offering a novel perspective, etc. We did not require papers to be scored numerically against a specific rubric or scale (e.g., for importance) but instead used these broad guiding principles (see Appendix 1). Although such criteria can be subjective, we hope that the plurality of research interests and lived experiences in our group have minimized potential individual level biases. Interested readers can find short summaries and comments on the importance of the papers on our OSF page (https://osf.io/c98sk/) in the reading list and double checking excel sheet forms.

For the purposes of this annotated reading list, we collected and double-checked 54 items. We categorized a final selection of 18 papers, chosen based on their subjective importance, covering nine themes: history of neurodiversity; how do we think about neurodiversity?; the importance of lived experience; a neurodiversity paradigm for autism; beyond deficit views of ADHD; expanding the scope of neurodiversity; anti-ableism; the need for robust methods; and integration with open and participatory work.

Short, non-exhaustive summaries of significant contributions by the articles in our reading list.

No data were generated for this work.

1. Website

   1. Asasumasu K

   (2015) PSA from the actual coiner of "neurodivergent"

   Lost in My Mind TARDIS. Accessed August 23, 2024.

   https://sherlocksflataffect.tumblr.com/post/121295972384/psa-fromthe-actual-coiner-of-neurodivergent
2. Website

   1. Baggs AM

   (2005) To the Kit Weintraubs of the World

   Autism Information Library. Accessed November 29, 2024.

   http://web.archive.org/web/20050109023348/http://autistics.org/library/ambweintraub.html
3. Website

   1. Baggs AM

   (2016) Reviving the concept of cousins

   Ballastexistenz. Accessed October 23, 2024.

   https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/cousins/
4. 1. Botha M
   2. Dibb B
   3. Frost DM

   (2022) “It’s being a part of a grand tradition, a grand counter-culture which involves communities”: A qualitative investigation of autistic community connectedness

   Autism 26:2151–2164.

   https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221080248

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Botha M
   2. Hanlon J
   3. Williams GL

   (2023) Does language matter? Identity-first versus person-first language use in autism research: A response to Vivanti

   Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 53:870–878.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04858-w

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Botha M
   2. Chapman R
   3. Giwa Onaiwu M
   4. Kapp SK
   5. Stannard Ashley A
   6. Walker N

   (2024) The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory

   Autism 28:1591–1594.

   https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241237871

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bottema-Beutel K
   2. Kapp SK
   3. Lester JN
   4. Sasson NJ
   5. Hand BN

   (2021) Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers

   Autism in Adulthood 3:18–29.

   https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0014

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bottema-Beutel K
   2. Kapp SK
   3. Sasson N
   4. Gernsbacher MA
   5. Natri H
   6. Botha M

   (2023) Anti-ableism and scientific accuracy in autism research: A false dichotomy

   Frontiers in Psychiatry 14:1244451.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1244451

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. Book

   1. Chamberlin J

   (1978)

   On Our Own: Patient-Controlled Alternatives to the Mental Health System

   McGraw-Hill.

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Chapman R

    (2021) Neurodiversity and the social ecology of mental functions

    Perspectives on Psychological Science 16:1360–1372.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620959833

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Cheng Y
    2. Tekola B
    3. Balasubramanian A
    4. Crane L
    5. Leadbitter K

    (2023) Neurodiversity and community-led rights-based movements: Barriers and opportunities for global research partnerships

    Autism 27:573–577.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231159165

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Clouder L
    2. Karakus M
    3. Cinotti A
    4. Ferreyra MV
    5. Fierros GA
    6. Rojo P

    (2020) Neurodiversity in higher education: A narrative synthesis

    Higher Education 80:757–778.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00513-6

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Constantino CD

    (2018) What can stutterers learn from the neurodiversity movement?

    Seminars in Speech and Language 39:382–396.

    https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1667166

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Crüwell S
    2. van Doorn J
    3. Etz A
    4. Makel MC
    5. Moshontz H
    6. Niebaum JC
    7. Orben A
    8. Parsons S
    9. Schulte-Mecklenbeck M

    (2019) Seven easy steps to open science

    Zeitschrift Für Psychologie 227:237–248.

    https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387

    • Google Scholar
15. Book

    1. Cutler ES

    (2019) Listening to those with lived experience

    In: Steingard S, editors. Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications. Springer International. pp. 179–206.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02732-2_8

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. den Houting J

    (2019) Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective

    Autism 23:271–273.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318820762

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Dwyer P

    (2022) The neurodiversity approach(es): What are they and what do they mean for researchers?

    Human Development 66:73–92.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000523723

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. Website

    1. Dwyer P

    (2024) The meaning of the double empathy problem

    Accessed October 23, 2024.

    https://www.autisticscholar.com/the-meaning-of-the-double-empathy-problem
19. 1. Dwyer P
    2. Williams ZJ
    3. Lawson WB
    4. Rivera SM

    (2024) A trans-diagnostic investigation of attention, hyper-focus, and monotropism in autism, attention dysregulation hyperactivity development, and the general population

    Neurodiversity 2:37883.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330241237883

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Elsherif MM
    2. Wheeldon LR
    3. Frisson S

    (2021) Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing deficit?

    Journal of Fluency Disorders 67:105827.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105827

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. Preprint

    1. Elsherif MM
    2. Middleton SL
    3. Phan JM
    4. Azevedo F
    5. Iley BJ
    6. Grose-Hodge M
    7. Tyler SL
    8. Kapp SK
    9. Gourdon-Kanhukamwe A
    10. Grafton-Clarke D
    11. Yeung SK
    12. Shaw JJ
    13. Hartmann H
    14. Dokovova M

    (2022) Bridging neurodiversity and open scholarship: How shared values can guide best practices for research integrity, social justice, and principled education

    MetaArXiv.

    https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/k7a9p

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Gernsbacher MA
    2. Yergeau M

    (2019) Empirical failures of the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind

    Archives of Scientific Psychology 7:102–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000067

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Giwa Onaiwu M

    (2020) “They don’t know, don’t show, or don’t care”: Autism’s white privilege problem

    Autism in Adulthood 2:270–272.

    https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0077

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Gourdon-Kanhukamwe A
    2. Kalandadze T
    3. Yeung SK
    4. Azevedo F
    5. Iley B
    6. Phan JM
    7. Ramji AV
    8. Shaw JJ
    9. Zaneva M
    10. Dokovova M
    11. Hartmann H
    12. Kapp SK
    13. Warrington KL
    14. Elsherif MM
    15. Framework of Open Reproducible Research Training (FORRT)

    (2023) Opening up understanding of neurodiversity: A call for applying participatory and open scholarship practices

    Cognitive Psychology Bulletin 8:23–27.

    https://doi.org/10.53841/bpscog.2023.1.8.23

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Green A
    2. Dura L
    3. Harris P
    4. Heilig L
    5. Kirby B
    6. McClintick J
    7. Pfender E
    8. Carrasco R

    (2020) Teaching and researching with a mental health diagnosis: Practices and perspectives on academic ableism

    Rhetoric of Health and Medicine 3:1.

    https://doi.org/10.5744/rhm.2020.1010

    • Google Scholar
26. Book

    1. Hallowell EM
    2. Ratey JJ

    (2022)

    ADHD 2.0: New Science and Essential Strategies for Thriving with Distraction--from Childhood through Adulthood

    Ballantine Books.

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hamilton LG
    2. Petty S

    (2023) Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis

    Frontiers in Psychology 14:1093290.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093290

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. Data

    1. Hartmann H
    2. Darda KM
    3. Meletaki V
    4. Ilchovska Z
    5. Corral-Frías NS
    6. Hofer G
    7. Azevedo F
    8. Sauvé SA

    (authors) (2024) Incorporating feminist practices into psychological science - the why, the what and the how

    Open Science Framework.

    https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/2rcuz
29. 1. Heraty S
    2. Lautarescu A
    3. Belton D
    4. Boyle A
    5. Cirrincione P
    6. Doherty M
    7. Douglas S
    8. Plas JRD
    9. Van Den Bosch K
    10. Violland P
    11. Tercon J
    12. Ruigrok A
    13. Murphy DGM
    14. Bourgeron T
    15. Chatham C
    16. Loth E
    17. Oakley B
    18. McAlonan GM
    19. Charman T
    20. Puts N
    21. Gallagher L
    22. Jones EJH

    (2023) Bridge-building between communities: Imagining the future of biomedical autism research

    Cell 186:3747–3752.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.08.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Hunt AD
    2. Procyshyn TL

    (2024) Changing perspectives on autism: Overlapping contributions of evolutionary psychiatry and the neurodiversity movement

    Autism Research 17:459–466.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.3078

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Jaarsma P
    2. Welin S

    (2012) Autism as a natural human variation: Reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement

    Health Care Analysis 20:20–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-011-0169-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Johnson RM

    (2023) Dyslexia is not a gift, but it is not that simple

    Infant and Child Development 32:e2454.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2454

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Kalandadze T
    2. Hart SA

    (2024) Open developmental science: An overview and annotated reading list

    Infant and Child Development 33:e2334.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2334

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. Book

    1. Kapp SK

    (2020) Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline

    Palgrave Macmillan.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kathawalla UK
    2. Silverstein P
    3. Syed M

    (2021) Easing into open science: A guide for graduate students and their advisors

    Collabra 7:18684.

    https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18684

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Kidd DE

    (2018)

    Neurodivergence enminded/embodied: Living with severe traumatic brain injury

    Word and Text, A Journal of Literary Studies and Linguistics 8:48–60.

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Leadbitter K
    2. Buckle KL
    3. Ellis C
    4. Dekker M

    (2021) Autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement: Implications for autism early intervention research and practice

    Frontiers in Psychology 12:635690.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635690

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. Preprint

    1. Manalili MAR

    (2022) Decolonizing theory reveals psycholinguistic injustice in the field of speech/language pathology

    PsyArXiv.

    https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xe2rv

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Manalili MAR
    2. Pearson A
    3. Sulik J
    4. Creechan L
    5. Elsherif M
    6. Murkumbi I
    7. Azevedo F
    8. Bonnen KL
    9. Kim JS
    10. Kording K
    11. Lee JJ
    12. Obscura M
    13. Kapp SK
    14. Röer JP
    15. Morstead T

    (2023) From puzzle to progress: How engaging with neurodiversity can improve cognitive science

    Cognitive Science 47:e13255.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13255

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Mellifont D

    (2019) Shifting neurotypical prevalence in knowledge production about the mentally diverse: A qualitative study exploring factors potentially influencing a greater presence of lived experience-led research

    Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 8:66–94.

    https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v8i3.508

    • Google Scholar
41. Book

    1. Milton D
    2. Ridout S
    3. Murray D
    4. Martin N
    5. Mills R

    (2020)

    The Neurodiversity Reader: Exploring Concepts, Lived Experiences and Implications for Practice

    Pavilion.

    • Google Scholar
42. Website

    1. Montgomery C

    (2001) Defining Autistic Lives

    Accessed August 23, 2024.

    http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/0501/0501cov.htm
43. Website

    1. Montgomery C

    (2005) Critic of the Dawn

    Accessed August 23, 2024.

    http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/reviews/ckmontrubin0605.html
44. 1. Monzel M
    2. Dance C
    3. Azañón E
    4. Simner J

    (2023) Aphantasia within the framework of neurodivergence: Some preliminary data and the curse of the confidence gap

    Consciousness and Cognition 115:103567.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2023.103567

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Nair VK
    2. Farah W
    3. Boveda M

    (2024) Is neurodiversity a Global Northern White paradigm?

    Autism 1:13623613241280835.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241280835

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Natri HM
    2. Abubakare O
    3. Asasumasu K
    4. Basargekar A
    5. Beaud F
    6. Botha M
    7. Bottema-Beutel K
    8. Brea MR
    9. Brown LXZ
    10. Burr DA
    11. Cobbaert L
    12. Dabbs C
    13. Denome D
    14. Rosa SDR
    15. Doherty M
    16. Edwards B
    17. Edwards C
    18. Liszk SE
    19. Elise F
    20. Fletcher-Watson S
    21. Flower RL
    22. Fuller S
    23. Gassner D
    24. Onaiwu MG
    25. Good J
    26. Grant A
    27. Haddix VL
    28. Heraty S
    29. Hundt A
    30. Kapp SK
    31. Keates N
    32. Kulshan T
    33. Lampi AJ
    34. Latimer O
    35. Leadbitter K
    36. Tidd JL
    37. Manalili M
    38. Martin M
    39. Millichamp A
    40. Morton H
    41. Nair V
    42. Pavlopoulou G
    43. Pearson A
    44. Pellicano L
    45. Porter H
    46. Poulsen R
    47. Robertson ZS
    48. Rodriguez K
    49. Roux A
    50. Russell M
    51. Ryan J
    52. Sasson N
    53. Grier HS
    54. Somerville M
    55. Sorensen C
    56. Stockwell KM
    57. Szymanski T
    58. Thompson-Hodgetts S
    59. van Driel M
    60. VanUitert V
    61. Waldock K
    62. Walker N
    63. Watts C
    64. Williams Z
    65. Woods R
    66. Yu B
    67. Zadow M
    68. Zimmerman J
    69. Zisk AH

    (2023) Anti-ableist language is fully compatible with high-quality autism research: Response to Singer et al. (2023)

    Autism Research 16:673–676.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2928

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Ne’eman A
    2. Pellicano E

    (2022) Neurodiversity as politics

    Human Development 66:149–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000524277

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. Website

    1. Neumeier SM

    (2018) ‘To Siri with love’ and the problem with neurodiversity lite

    Rewire News Group. Accessed November 29, 2024.

    https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2018/02/09/siri-love-problem-neurodiversity-lite/
49. 1. Odegard TN
    2. Dye M

    (2024) The gift of dyslexia: What is the harm in it?

    Annals of Dyslexia 74:143–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-024-00308-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Pellicano E
    2. den Houting J

    (2022) Annual Research Review: Shifting from “normal science” to neurodiversity in autism science

    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines 63:381–396.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13534

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Petty S
    2. Ellis A

    (2024) The meaning of autistic movements

    Autism 28:3015–3020.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241262151

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Phan JM
    2. Dwyer P
    3. Elsherif MM
    4. Friedel E
    5. Kapp SK

    (2025) Oxytocin in autism: Rethinking treatment and research through a neurodivergent perspective

    Psychoneuroendocrinology 171:107220.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2024.107220

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Shah PJ
    2. Boilson M
    3. Rutherford M
    4. Prior S
    5. Johnston L
    6. Maciver D
    7. Forsyth K

    (2022) Neurodevelopmental disorders and neurodiversity: Definition of terms from Scotland’s National Autism Implementation Team

    The British Journal of Psychiatry 221:577–579.

    https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2022.43

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Shenker R
    2. Rodgers N
    3. Guitar B
    4. Onslow M

    (2023) Contemporary clinical conversations about stuttering: Neurodiversity and ableism

    Journal of Fluency Disorders 78:106014.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2023.106014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. Book

    1. Silberman S

    (2015)

    Neurotribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity

    Penguin.

    • Google Scholar
56. Website

    1. Silberman S

    (2023) How my Mother’s dementia showed me another side of neurodiversity

    Scientific American. Accessed August 23, 2024.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-my-mothers-dementia-showed-me-another-sideof-neurodiversity/
57. Website

    1. Sinclair J

    (1993) Don’t mourn for us. Autism Network International: Our Voice Newsletter Issue 3; pages 20–22

    Accessed August 23, 2024.

    https://sites.google.com/view/autistic-archive/topics/our-voice
58. 1. Singer A
    2. Lutz A
    3. Escher J
    4. Halladay A

    (2023) A full semantic toolbox is essential for autism research and practice to thrive

    Autism Research 16:497–501.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2876

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Sonuga-Barke EJS

    (2023) Paradigm “flipping” to reinvigorate translational science: Outlining a neurodevelopmental science framework from a “neurodiversity” perspective

    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines 64:1405–1408.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13886

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Tamir T

    (2023) Being neurodivergent in academia: Working with my brain and not against it

    eLife 12:295068.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.95068

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Taylor H
    2. Zaghi A
    3. Rankin S

    (2023) Marginalising dyslexic researchers is bad for science

    eLife 12:e93980.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.93980

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Trundle G
    2. Jones KA
    3. Ropar D
    4. Egan V

    (2023) Prevalence of victimisation in autistic Individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Trauma, Violence & Abuse 24:2282–2296.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221093689

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. van Gorp R

    (2022) My journey and the value of a community where neurodiversity is celebrated

    Scope 11:142–149.

    https://doi.org/10.34074/scop.4011002

    • Google Scholar
64. Book

    1. Walker N

    (2021)

    Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities

    Autonomous Press.

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Watts G
    2. Crompton C
    3. Grainger C
    4. Long J
    5. Botha M
    6. Somerville M
    7. Cage E

    (2024) “A certain magic” - autistic adults’ experiences of interacting with other autistic people and its relation to Quality of Life: A systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis

    Autism 1:13623613241255811.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241255811

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. Book

    1. Yergeau M

    (2018) Authoring Autism: On Rhetoric and Neurological Queerness

    Duke University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822372189

    • Google Scholar
67. Website

    1. Zisk AH

    (2019) Yes, That Too

    Accessed August 23, 2024.

    https://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/2019/09/dimensionality-reduction.html
68. 1. Zisk AH

    (2023) Critical autism studies beyond academia: An annotated list

    Ought 5:6.

    https://doi.org/10.9707/2833-1508.1144

    • Google Scholar
69. Book

    1. Zisk AH

    (2024) Meaningful engagement with neurodivergent public work

    In: Rosqvist HB, Jackson-Perry D, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Research Methods and Ethics in Neurodiversity Studies. Springer. pp. 325–338.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66127-3_19

    • Google Scholar

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "An Annotated Introductory Reading List for Neurodiversity" to eLife for consideration as a Feature Article. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by Peter Rodgers of eLife. The following individuals involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Kristen Bottema-Beutel (reviewer 1); Hanna Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist (reviewer 3).

The reviewers and editors have discussed the reviews and we have drafted this decision letter to help you prepare a revised submission.

General assessments

Reviewer #1:

The authors have provided an informative and comprehensive annotated reading list to introduce scholars and laypeople to key concepts and areas of inquiry within neurodiversity scholarship. The annotated list clarifies complex issues in a way that will be accessible to scholars in a wide variety of disciplines as well as non-scholars.

Overall, this annotated list was a pleasure to read – but I do have a few recommendations for the authors to improve upon what is already an excellent manuscript.Reviewer #2:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, as it presents a comprehensive reading list crucial for understanding neurodiversity, particularly for those less familiar with the concept. I appreciate the collaborative efforts between neurodivergent and neurotypical researchers, which enrich the discussions and provide balanced perspectives on various relevant topics. Notably, the article offers clear definitions of terms relevant to neurodiversity, addressing inconsistencies in current usage and establishing a solid foundation for future research to reference. The historical context and related frameworks highlighted, which have at times been overlooked or mistaken, are also valuable.

Overall, I believe this article will serve as a significant resource for a wide audience.

Reviewer #3:

I may be hesitant to this establishing of a "canon" – as it is always situated/constructed, but I also acknowledge that this bibliography is most helpful for newcomers to the field (and I love the methods/the ways this big task has been accomplished).

Summary

The authors have provided an informative and comprehensive annotated reading list to introduce scholars and laypeople to key concepts and areas of inquiry within neurodiversity scholarship. The fact that the article is the result of a collaborative effort involving both neurodivergent and neurotypical researchers enrich the discussions and provides balanced perspectives on various relevant topics. Notably, the article offers clear definitions of terms relevant to neurodiversity, addressing inconsistencies in current usage and establishing a solid foundation for future research to reference. However, there are a number of concerns that need to be addressed, as outlined below.

Essential revisions

1) I recommend clarifying terminology sooner in the manuscript, and using terms consistently. The authors open the paper with the term "neurodiversity", but seem to mean the "neurodiversity paradigm" or "neurodiversity framework" for understanding disability. As the authors clarify in the second paragraph, if "neurodiversity" refers to the biological fact that of neurocognitive variation, it should not be used as a term to describe a conceptual framework.

2) In addition to the helpful definitions of neurodiversity and neurodivergence, it might be beneficial to clarify the distinctions between the two and provide guidance on their usage. This could help reduce confusion and uncertainty, thereby mitigating potential tensions and misunderstandings in the field.

3) The authors should clarify to whom the open call for reading recommendations was made and offer a general sense of who provided recommendations (scholars? laypeople? a mix of both?). I see the details about FORRT in the supplemental materials, but I am not familiar with this platform and am not sure what audiences would have received this call.

4) There do seem to be some seminal texts missing from the annotated list- the list seems to favor briefer articles published in academic journals (Jim Sinclair's piece being an exception). The seminal texts that came to mind are:

Milton, D., Ridout, S., Murray, D., Martin, N., and Mills, R. (2020). The Neurodiversity Reader: Exploring concepts, lived experiences and implications for practice. Hove, UK: Pavilion.

Kapp, S.K. (Ed.) (2020). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: stories from the frontline. Palgrave Macmillan (this does appear in the reference list, but is not a selected text)

Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer heresies. Autonomous press.

Yergeau, M. (2018). Authoring autism: On rhetoric and neurological queerness. Duke University Press.

I am not necessarily suggesting that these texts need to be included in the annotated list, but the authors may want to make specific mention of them in the text as additional reading, and perhaps clarify that the annotated list favored shorter pieces as opposed to book-length theses or anthologies.

5) One additional omission is issues related to intersectionality, and who is traditionally included in neurodiversity activism and scholarship. There have been a few recent papers published in the journal Autism (one published very recently, so it would have not been available to the authors at the time of their writing) that the authors may want to mention as raising important issues (even if they are not selected for the list):

Cheng, Y., Tekola, B., Balasubramanian, A., Crane, L., and Leadbitter, K. (2023). Neurodiversity and community-led rights-based movements: Barriers and opportunities for global research partnerships. Autism, 27(3), 573-577.

Nair, V. K., Farah, W., and Boveda, M. (2024). Is neurodiversity a Global Northern White paradigm? Autism, 13623613241280835.

6) I have particular concerns regarding the structure of the main theme "Current Topics". The subthemes do not seem to effectively correspond to this overarching theme and would benefit from further categorisation. For instance, the subthemes "Autism" and "ADHD" are not sufficiently informative on their own, and their content could be further extracted and synthesised. The discussion on medical versus neurodiversity-affirming models, for example, emerges as a common current topic across the "Autism", "ADHD", and "Beyond Autism and ADHD" subthemes. Other examples of potential subthemes could be language and identity, the need to expand the scope of neurodiversity, mental health, given the current annotations available. Relatedly, the personal journey of an academic with a diagnosis of depression and ADHD under "ADHD" might be more readily integrated into the section on "The importance of lived experiences".

Overall, the presentation currently feels somewhat disorganised and lack the synthesis needed to effectively highlight current topics in the field. It would also be beneficial to explore how this theme can be expanded, even if it involves including additional items on the reading list, to reflect the broader contemporary discussions relevant to neurodiversity.

[note from the Editor: It is not essential that you revise the subthemes under Current Topics. However, if you retain the current subthemes, please discuss other subthemes that could have been used]

[7] Something I was a bit disappointed in finding, was the relative dominance of scientific papers, as I expect it is much harder for newcomers to the field to find the important community theorising published in social media (blogs/vlogs). So I would have appreciated something more from the blogosphere + suggesting perhaps another section focusing on community theorising, and discussing academic versus community theorising a bit. And when I say this, I also acknowledge that my personal favourites and important inspirations among the community theorists was not included, so I am mindful that this bibliography is just a selection which the authors are clearly stating.

Essential revisions

1) I recommend clarifying terminology sooner in the manuscript, and using terms consistently. The authors open the paper with the term "neurodiversity", but seem to mean the "neurodiversity paradigm" or "neurodiversity framework" for understanding disability. As the authors clarify in the second paragraph, if "neurodiversity" refers to the biological fact that of neurocognitive variation, it should not be used as a term to describe a conceptual framework.

Thank you, this is helpful.

In our revision, we have first redrafted the Introduction such that we open with the term neurodiversity paradigm:

'The neurodiversity paradigm can be seen as a shift in thinking that embraces the diversity of minds, brains, and neurocognition and affirms variation as natural and valuable (Pellicano and den Houting, 2022; Walker, 2021).'

We have also reworked the sections so that we clarify terminology at an earlier stage in the Introduction. Specifically, we have revised the ordering and presentation of our previous paragraphs 1 and 2.

'Like other paradigm shifts, this change in perspective can be challenging to fully understand in the context of education, research, and social thinking. Here, the issue is further compounded as the term ‘neurodiversity’ has broad scope. Numerous definitions of neurodiversity as a movement, a research field, and a framework or paradigm exist (Dwyer, 2022; Milton et al., 2020). These three aspects can be distinguished in the following way: (1) the neurodiversity movement encompasses social, advocacy, and political movements advocating for the rights, inclusion, and acceptance of neurodivergent people; (2) the neurodiversity research field is a largely academic field studying, for instance, psychological and social aspects of neurodiversity; (3) the neurodiversity paradigm or framework is a conceptual framework that at its core challenges medical or deficit-based views of neurodiversity and instead asserts that neurocognitive differences should be seen as natural variations (see Table 1). It is important to acknowledge that neurodiversity is inherently interdisciplinary, and these three aspects can overlap and intersect, and jointly contribute to a more holistic understanding of neurodiversity. For instance, research and activism can intersect in areas such as disability rights, mental health advocacy, social justice, and equity, diversity and inclusion efforts in education and in the workforce (Clouder et al., 2020; Dwyer, 2022; Manalili et al., 2023). Unless specifically discussing one of these aspects, here we generally adopt the term ‘neurodiversity paradigm’ as a broader idea, encompassing ways of thinking applicable to both the neurodiversity movement and the research field.'

Further, we have gone through the full manuscript and ensured we have consistency of terminology use in line with the definitions we offer in the Introduction.

2) In addition to the helpful definitions of neurodiversity and neurodivergence, it might be beneficial to clarify the distinctions between the two and provide guidance on their usage. This could help reduce confusion and uncertainty, thereby mitigating potential tensions and misunderstandings in the field.

Thank you for this suggestion. This is very useful guidance for us, as it is our goal to provide an introductory resource that is indeed helpful and clear. To this end, we have addressed your comment by creating a new table (Table 1), which contains definitions of neurodiversity and neurodivergence. We refer to this table in the Introduction. We have followed the spirit of your comment to reduce confusion and uncertainty, and extended it to a few other terms that might be less clear to a diverse readership. The table contains a brief description of each term as well as further notes. The ‘Further notes’ column uses the term (and so provides a usage example) and offers further clarification and referencing.

3) The authors should clarify to whom the open call for reading recommendations was made and offer a general sense of who provided recommendations (scholars? laypeople? a mix of both?). I see the details about FORRT in the supplemental materials, but I am not familiar with this platform and am not sure what audiences would have received this call.

Thank you, we have addressed this by providing further detail in the manuscript and supplement.

In the manuscript we have added:

'The open call was primarily shared through the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT) platform, an online collaborative community focused on promoting open scholarship, as well as advancing research and education about neurodiversity.'

In the supplement we have added:

'We believe FORRT reaches a fairly diverse audience of people working in and outside of academia, interested in open science and neurodiversity. Some of our collaborators were already involved in other FORRT projects, whereas others were familiar with FORRT but not involved in this community; some collaborators also joined after hearing about our open call from their own networks.'

4) There do seem to be some seminal texts missing from the annotated list- the list seems to favor briefer articles published in academic journals (Jim Sinclair's piece being an exception). The seminal texts that came to mind are:

Milton, D., Ridout, S., Murray, D., Martin, N., and Mills, R. (2020). The Neurodiversity Reader: Exploring concepts, lived experiences and implications for practice. Hove, UK: Pavilion.

Kapp, S.K. (Ed.) (2020). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: stories from the frontline. Palgrave Macmillan (this does appear in the reference list, but is not a selected text)

Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer heresies. Autonomous press.

Yergeau, M. (2018). Authoring autism: On rhetoric and neurological queerness. Duke University Press.

I am not necessarily suggesting that these texts need to be included in the annotated list, but the authors may want to make specific mention of them in the text as additional reading, and perhaps clarify that the annotated list favored shorter pieces as opposed to book-length theses or anthologies.

Thank you, this is helpful guidance to receive, and wonderful texts to receive as further recommendations. We had included references to both Kapp (2020) and a section of Walker (2021) but on reflection, as well as examining the other two suggested references more carefully, we agree these are important to more strongly highlight. Indeed, we were initially somewhat hesitant to recommend books and lengthier texts, as we worried the length might discourage newcomers (and have now added more detail in the Methods section in the Supplement regarding accessibility of texts). Equally, some of these texts contain very powerful chapters or sections relating to at times quite distinct topics, and we wondered to what extent we could appropriately annotate the full breadth of issues covered in these texts. For instance, The Neurodiversity Reader covers important topics ranging on diverse issues such as perspectives on autism, neurodiversity beyond autism, female neurodiversity, employment and university experiences, a literature review on person-centered counseling etc. With all this in mind, we have decided not to directly recommend these texts in our themes but rather, we have opted to take a three step approach to better showcase these important texts. First, we better highlight these in the manuscript, second, we have added them as direct recommendations in our new ‘Further readings’ section, and third, we have highlighted them in our References section.

To expand on the first point, we have referenced the texts throughout the manuscript, to better highlight immediate areas of connection and relevance:

• Milton et al. (2020): We reference this both in our Introduction, in the context of our discussion of the concepts of neurodiversity, as well as in the theme on the importance of lived experience.

• Kapp (2020): We include this in our discussion of the history of neurodiversity theme, as well as in the theme on autism.

• Walker (2021): We have more directly highlighted Walker (2021) in our new Table 1, where we both direct readers to this text in the table description, as well as in the table itself as a direct reference.

• Yergeau (2018): We reference this in our theme on the history of neurodiversity.

On the second point, in our new ‘Further readings’ section, we have added a mention to all these texts.

'We hope the themes discussed here spark an interest in neurodiversity. The current list of themes is not intended as a canonical or definitive organization but is only one of many possible ways to learn more about neurodiversity. As such, we want to offer suggestions for further key readings, as well as other potential themes or topics of interest. Readers interested in extended introductions about the neurodiversity paradigm, movement, and research field, may wish to consider The Neurodiversity Reader (Milton et al., 2020). Detailed accounts about the autistic community, its early development, and key figures should consult Kapp (2020). For deeper theoretical engagement with neurodiversity, as well as critiques to medicalized views and harmful societal viewpoints should see Walker (2021) and Yergeau (2018).'

On the third point, in our References section we have added an * symbol to denote particular texts we recommend for readers interested in further reading. We have marked all four suggested works for further reading there as well.

5) One additional omission is issues related to intersectionality, and who is traditionally included in neurodiversity activism and scholarship. There have been a few recent papers published in the journal Autism (one published very recently, so it would have not been available to the authors at the time of their writing) that the authors may want to mention as raising important issues (even if they are not selected for the list):

Cheng, Y., Tekola, B., Balasubramanian, A., Crane, L., and Leadbitter, K. (2023). Neurodiversity and community-led rights-based movements: Barriers and opportunities for global research partnerships. Autism, 27(3), 573-577.

Nair, V. K., Farah, W., and Boveda, M. (2024). Is neurodiversity a Global Northern White paradigm? Autism, 13623613241280835.

We appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful comment highlighting the critical importance of intersectionality in neurodiversity activism and scholarship – this is something we agree with very much. In our original draft, we had alluded to the importance of intersectionality broadly but on reflection, we see how this was not well fleshed out throughout the manuscript. To this end, we have incorporated both of the references here and revised our manuscript to better clarify the importance of recognizing intersectionality.

Specifically, we highlight Cheng et al. as our recommendation in the theme 'The need for robust theory and methods.' We also use Nair et al. in the same paragraph, alongside a further new reference of Giwa Onaiwu’s (2020) powerful words about her experience as a Black autistic mother to Black autistic children and the importance of racial diversity. This section now reads:

'Further important aspects for developing robust methods for studying neurodiversity include asking useful research questions with relevance to neurodivergent people’s lives and needs (see next theme), questioning who gets to be included in conversations and work on neurodiversity, and understanding neurodiversity as a global, rather than solely western area of research and activism. Historically, the neurodiversity movement has been driven largely by English-speaking White autistic people, primarily from countries in the Global North and there is still a great need to recognize the issue of intersectionality in terms of whose voices have been included in neurodiversity activism and scholarship and whose have been excluded (for instance, on the need for greater racial diversity in autism research, see Giwa Onaiwu, 2020). Indeed, as some have warned, solidifying the homogenization of neurodiversity as a White and western movement could undermine the social justice and emancipatory goals of the movement (Nair, Farah, and Boveda, 2024). Drawing on their collective experiences in Ethiopia, India, and Hong Kong, Cheng and colleagues (2023) can help readers think critically about the issues of intersectionality and inclusion, by discussing a variety of sociocultural and political conditions specific to Asian and African neurodiversity efforts. The authors argye that the neurodiversity movement shares fundamental goals with decolonization agendas such as dismantling what, at times, to some may have seemed as 'objective' scientific efforts that ultimately disparage the truths, knowledge, and priorities of lived experiences (e.g., claims that autistic people lack theory of mind). In this light, decolonizing knowledge production, respecting local theoretical frameworks, indigenous knowledge, and fostering community-led science could be important tools for a more robust study of neurodiversity that does not dehumanize neurodivergent people.'

[6] I have particular concerns regarding the structure of the main theme "Current Topics". The subthemes do not seem to effectively correspond to this overarching theme and would benefit from further categorisation. For instance, the subthemes "Autism" and "ADHD" are not sufficiently informative on their own, and their content could be further extracted and synthesised. The discussion on medical versus neurodiversity-affirming models, for example, emerges as a common current topic across the "Autism", "ADHD", and "Beyond Autism and ADHD" subthemes. Other examples of potential subthemes could be language and identity, the need to expand the scope of neurodiversity, mental health, given the current annotations available. Relatedly, the personal journey of an academic with a diagnosis of depression and ADHD under "ADHD" might be more readily integrated into the section on "The importance of lived experiences".

Overall, the presentation currently feels somewhat disorganised and lack the synthesis needed to effectively highlight current topics in the field. It would also be beneficial to explore how this theme can be expanded, even if it involves including additional items on the reading list, to reflect the broader contemporary discussions relevant to neurodiversity.

[note from the Editor: It is not essential that you revise the subthemes under Current Topics. However, if you retain the current subthemes, please discuss other subthemes that could have been used]

This is valuable feedback, thank you. We understand that the Reviewer’s main concerns here are related to the need to improve how informative the themes are, as well as the overall organization and presentation. We have taken a number of steps to improve these.

First, we have removed the bigger theme headings ('What is neurodiversity?', 'Current topics', 'Improving the field'). As the reviewer points out, there are commonalities shared between some of our themes (such as around language, identity, challenging medical models etc.). From that perspective, we considered that some of these bigger headings implied clear-cut divisions that could be unhelpful (whereas, for instance, some of the current topics relate to an understanding of what neurodiversity is, and some of the topics under ‘Improving the field’ are both current topics and helpful for understanding views of what neurodiversity is).

Second, we have worked to improve specificity of each theme’s content by revising some of the titles.

• 'Autism': This theme is now called 'A neurodiversity paradigm for autism science'. We believe this now better summarizes the content of the theme, as both of the papers we highlight argue for a neurodiversity paradigm for autism science, albeit with different specific examples.

• 'ADHD': This theme is now called 'Beyond deficit views of ADHD'. As above, we trust this is now more specific about the content of the theme.

• 'Beyond Autism and ADHD': This is now called 'Expanding the scope of neurodiversity: diverse neurotypes and experiences'.Third, we have revised our text in order to highlight commonalities between the themes, and better present the content of the themes. In the Introduction, we have expressed this in order to better guide the reader:

'Rather than being completely discrete categories, the themes we present often raise shared discussion points, albeit from different perspectives and with different examples. For instance, commonalities emerge regarding the importance of neurodiversity affirming models over deficit-based views, the use of appropriate language, the need to expand definitions of neurodiversity (for instance, to be inclusive of mental health), and the need for inclusion and centering of lived experience.'

Further, we understand the Reviewer suggests moving the van Gorp (2022) text to the section on lived experience. This was a popular piece and indeed was considered a good fit for both the themes on lived experience and ADHD. After discussions, we decided that we already had many texts highlighting autism and ADHD (in part reflecting the field itself) and that if we highlighted a text on ADHD in the lived experience theme, this would perhaps become even more disproportionate. We see value in using the section on lived experiences to highlight other experiences beyond autism and ADHD as in our view, until recently, such experiences have been less often focused on and acknowledged. Similarly, we also thought it would be beneficial to have a report of one’s lived experience in the ADHD section in regards to the same core issue brought up by the Reviewer in the below comment 7, that is: who gets to be part of conversations about neurodiversity? Although comment 7 focuses on a specific medium as an example (blogs), we believe it also points to a question of who the enunciator is, with which we agree: we do not wish to place too much (or exclusive) emphasis on 'expert' speech or discourse (e.g., academic reports, experiments or interventions).

Lastly, in response to the Editor’s note, we have discussed other subthemes that could have been used in our new section ‘Further readings’:

'It is important to recognize the plurality of important topics in neurodiversity and the inherent subjectivity in thematic categorization. For instance, many of the papers we synthesized here could have been thematically organized in different ways, such as focusing more on the evolution of the neurodiversity paradigm over time, different global and cultural perspectives on neurodiversity, the importance of intersectionality in shaping neurodivergent experiences, better understanding stigma, ableism, and language, as well as charting neurodiversity across the lifespan, or understanding how lived experience not only can drive academic research and theory, but can itself be a theoretical contribution.'

7) Something I was a bit disappointed in finding, was the relative dominance of scientific papers, as I expect it is much harder for newcomers to the field to find the important community theorising published in social media (blogs/vlogs). So I would have appreciated something more from the blogosphere + suggesting perhaps another section focusing on community theorising, and discussing academic versus community theorising a bit. And when I say this, I also acknowledge that my personal favourites and important inspirations among the community theorists was not included, so I am mindful that this bibliography is just a selection which the authors are clearly stating.

Thank you, this is a really important comment. We feel strongly about the inclusion of literature outside the scientific field, and this is why we set our project from the start to be inclusive of non-academic texts. The lead authors also tried to encourage the team to further consider blogs, opinions, manifestos etc. At the same time, we recognize and agree with the Reviewer that we have predominantly highlighted academic texts. In our work process, this emerged as a trend given methodological and practical considerations, chiefly that a certain degree of homogeneity between the chosen texts would perhaps be helpful to newcomers (for instance, most academic articles tend to have a common structure), as well as the fact that most academic articles meet certain standards of evaluation unlike some of the speech we find on blogs, which may often require further forms of specific contextualization.

Nevertheless, we strongly agree with the Reviewer on the importance of highlighting such work further. We have strived to do this in our new ‘Further readings’ sections. We have first reminded readers that this is not a 'canonical' or definitive list (hopefully also addressing Reviewer 3’s comment in the General Assessments):

'Our list of themes is not intended as a canonical or definitive categorization but is only one of many possible ways to learn more about neurodiversity. […] It is important to recognize the plurality of important topics in neurodiversity and the inherent subjectivity in thematic categorization.'

Then, we have discussed the importance of non-academic work and community theorizing, and have offered two starting points as concrete examples:

'Indeed, as online forums and discussions show, the term neurodiversity was collectively developed (Botha et al., 2024; see the History of neurodiversity theme). This is only one of many examples of the power of community discussion and community theorizing (Zisk, 2024). With this in mind, we also wish to encourage interested readers to consider blogs. As one example, we recommend Patrick Dwyer’s blog Autistic Scholar with rich discussions, informed by both academic research and lived experience on contemporary topics such as, for instance, the double empathy problem (Dwyer 2024). Blogs can also chart the evolution and spread of ideas. For instance, Mel Baggs’ important discussion on the history and importance of the concept of neurodivergent ‘cousins’, that is, people who share common communication patterns or social characteristics without necessarily sharing the same neurotype (Baggs, 2016).'

Finally, we also point readers to an existing annotated reading list that focuses on critical autism studies specifically beyond academia (Zisk, 2023):

'We also direct interested readers to consult the reading list by Zisk (2023) on critical autism studies beyond academia.'

Author details

1. Mirela Zaneva

   Mirela Zaneva is at Christ Church College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   mirela.zaneva@chch.ox.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3569-931X

2. Tao Coll-Martín

   Tao Coll-Martín is at the Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC) and the Department of Behavioral Sciences Methodology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Yseult Héjja-Brichard, Tamara Kalandadze, Andrea Kis, Alicja Koperska, Marie Adrienne Robles Manalili and Adrien Mathy

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0591-4018

3. Yseult Héjja-Brichard

   Yseult Héjja-Brichard is at the CNRS, Montpellier, France and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Tao Coll-Martín, Tamara Kalandadze, Andrea Kis, Alicja Koperska, Marie Adrienne Robles Manalili and Adrien Mathy

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3939-3852

4. Tamara Kalandadze

   Tamara Kalandadze is at Østfold University College, Halden, Norway

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Writing – original draft

   Contributed equally with

   Tao Coll-Martín, Yseult Héjja-Brichard, Andrea Kis, Alicja Koperska, Marie Adrienne Robles Manalili and Adrien Mathy

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1061-1131

5. Andrea Kis

   Andrea Kis is in the Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Tao Coll-Martín, Yseult Héjja-Brichard, Tamara Kalandadze, Alicja Koperska, Marie Adrienne Robles Manalili and Adrien Mathy

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4345-3814

6. Alicja Koperska

   Alicja Koperska is at the Poznan University of Business and Economics, Poznan, Poland

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Tao Coll-Martín, Yseult Héjja-Brichard, Tamara Kalandadze, Andrea Kis, Marie Adrienne Robles Manalili and Adrien Mathy

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2075-7732

7. Marie Adrienne Robles Manalili

   Marie Adrienne Robles Manalili is at AGHAM Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, Quezon City, Philippines

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Tao Coll-Martín, Yseult Héjja-Brichard, Tamara Kalandadze, Andrea Kis, Alicja Koperska and Adrien Mathy

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1564-8865

8. Adrien Mathy

   Adrien Mathy is at the ULiège Library and the Center of Semiotic and Rhetoric, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Tao Coll-Martín, Yseult Héjja-Brichard, Tamara Kalandadze, Andrea Kis, Alicja Koperska and Marie Adrienne Robles Manalili

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8459-359X

9. Christopher J Graham

   Christopher J Graham is at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (RCPE), Edinburgh, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Anna Hollis, Robert M Ross and Siu Kit Yeung

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1144-7970

10. Anna Hollis

    Anna Hollis is at the Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Validation, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Christopher J Graham, Robert M Ross and Siu Kit Yeung

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0009-0006-6006-8498

11. Robert M Ross

    Robert M Ross is in the Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    Contribution

    Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Christopher J Graham, Anna Hollis and Siu Kit Yeung

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8711-1675

12. Siu Kit Yeung

    Siu Kit Yeung is in the Department of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Contribution

    Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Christopher J Graham, Anna Hollis and Robert M Ross

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5835-0981

13. Veronica Allen

    Veronica Allen is at the Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation

    Contributed equally with

    Flavio Azevedo, Emily Friedel, Stephanie Fuller, Vaitsa Giannouli, Biljana Gjoneska, Helena Hartmann and Max Korbmacher

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8021-0344

14. Flavio Azevedo

    Flavio Azevedo is in the Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Contribution

    Supervision, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Veronica Allen, Emily Friedel, Stephanie Fuller, Vaitsa Giannouli, Biljana Gjoneska, Helena Hartmann and Max Korbmacher

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9000-8513

15. Emily Friedel

    Emily Friedel is in the Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development and the School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia

    Contribution

    Validation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Veronica Allen, Flavio Azevedo, Stephanie Fuller, Vaitsa Giannouli, Biljana Gjoneska, Helena Hartmann and Max Korbmacher

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0009-0001-0917-5398

16. Stephanie Fuller

    Stephanie Fuller is at Ask Me, I'm an AAC user and is based in the United States

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Veronica Allen, Flavio Azevedo, Emily Friedel, Vaitsa Giannouli, Biljana Gjoneska, Helena Hartmann and Max Korbmacher

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

17. Vaitsa Giannouli

    Vaitsa Giannouli is at the School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Veronica Allen, Flavio Azevedo, Emily Friedel, Stephanie Fuller, Biljana Gjoneska, Helena Hartmann and Max Korbmacher

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2176-8986

18. Biljana Gjoneska

    Biljana Gjoneska is at the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Skopje, North Macedonia

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Veronica Allen, Flavio Azevedo, Emily Friedel, Stephanie Fuller, Vaitsa Giannouli, Helena Hartmann and Max Korbmacher

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1200-6672

19. Helena Hartmann

    Helena Hartmann is in the Department of Neurology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Veronica Allen, Flavio Azevedo, Emily Friedel, Stephanie Fuller, Vaitsa Giannouli, Biljana Gjoneska and Max Korbmacher

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1331-6683

20. Max Korbmacher

    Max Korbmacher is at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Veronica Allen, Flavio Azevedo, Emily Friedel, Stephanie Fuller, Vaitsa Giannouli, Biljana Gjoneska and Helena Hartmann

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8113-2560

21. Mahmoud M Elsherif

    Mahmoud M Elsherif is at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham and the University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Alyssa Hillary Zisk

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0540-3998

22. Alyssa Hillary Zisk

    Alyssa Hillary Zisk is at the University of Rhode Island, South Kingstown, United States, and Ask Me, I'm an AAC user, United States

    Contribution

    Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Mahmoud M Elsherif

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2266-4855