Across the education, health, and care sector, the way we understand difference directly shapes the types of support we offer, the expectations we hold, and the relationships we build. For a long time, neurological differences were approached primarily through a medical lens, where any diversion from the norm was framed as a deficit, disorder, or dysfunction. This framing has had a significant influence on research, interventions, and professional practice.
In recent years, the neurodiversity movement has advocated for an alternative way of understanding difference; one that puts the individual’s strengths and rights in the centre of practice, rather than what is perceived as a deficit. This article explores what neurodiversity means, how neuroaffirming practice has emerged from this paradigm, and why these principles matter for professionals working with or alongside neurodivergent people.
What Do We Mean by Neurodiversity?
Neurodiversity has been described as “the diversity of human minds, the infinite variation in neurocognitive functioning within our species” (Walker, 2021). From this perspective, there is no single correct or ideal way for a brain to work. Differences in how people think, communicate, process sensory information, regulate attention, or move through the world are part of the naturally occurring variation of the human mind.
A useful way to understand neurodiversity is through the lens of biodiversity. In nature, ecosystems thrive because of variation rather than uniformity. A forest made up of a single species is fragile; a forest with many forms of life is resilient. In much the same way, variation in human minds contributes to cultural development and collective resilience.
The term neurodiversity entered academic discourse in the late 1990s through the work of autistic sociologist Judy Singer, drawing on ideas that had already been developing within autistic self-advocacy communities.
Neurodiversity functions as an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of neurological profiles, including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, Tourette syndrome, and other forms of cognitive and neurological variation.
Within this framework, several related terms are commonly used. The term neurodiverse refers to groups or contexts that include people with different neurological profiles. A classroom, workplace, family, or community can be neurodiverse.
The term neurodivergent refers to individuals whose ways of thinking, learning, sensory processing, and communicating diverge from what is socially constructed as typical or expected.
The term neurotypical refers to individuals whose ways of thinking, learning, sensory processing, and communicating broadly align with current socially dominant norms.
While these terms offer a shared language for talking about neurological difference, it’s important to remember that systems of classification are shaped by dominant cultural and political narratives, and require ongoing reflection.
Why Language Matters
Language is not a neutral tool in professional practice. The words we use as professionals to describe our pupils or clients shape how difference is understood, how responsibility is attributed, and what kinds of approaches are considered appropriate.
One brief glance at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), for any neurodivergence and their diagnostic criteria, will show the dominance that the medical model still holds in diagnosis and support designed for neurodivergent folk.
From a neurodiversity-affirming perspective, language plays a central role in either perpetuating or challenging these assumptions. When professionals use language that centres neuronormative expectations, it positions neurodivergent people as problems to be managed. In contrast, language that embraces difference invites open space for acceptance, mutual respect and common ground.
From Deficit-Based Thinking to Neuroaffirming Practice
The neurodiversity paradigm offers a fundamental shift in perspective. Rather than asking how individuals can be changed to fit in existing systems, it instead invites reflection on how environments, relationships, and expectations might change to support diverse ways of being.
As this perspective began to inform thinking across education, therapy, and care contexts, there was a need to articulate guiding principles that could support professionals to translate the paradigm into everyday practice. This gave rise to what is commonly described as neurodiversity-affirming, or neuroaffirming practice.
According to autistic psychologist Raelene Dundon (Dundon, 2023), there are seven core principles that permeate neuroaffirming practice.
Neuroaffirming practice is grounded in a commitment to autonomy, dignity, and respect. It begins with approaching neurodivergent people as capable, presuming competence regardless of communication style or support needs. It does not deny disability or the need for support. It does, however, challenge the assumption that different means inherently broken. The neurodiversity paradigm teaches us that many challenges don’t arise from neurological differences alone but are a product of the interaction between the person and a system that has not been designed for them (Chapman, 2023).
By adopting a strengths- and rights-based approach that centres on interests, capabilities, and meaningful participation, we can honour individuality and shape support in ways that are flexible and attuned to each person. Central to this way of working is listening to and learning from neurodivergent voices, recognising lived experience and neurodivergent culture as a vital source of knowledge.
Neuroaffirming practice is not a checklist or a set of techniques to be applied. It is an ever-evolving journey that begins with becoming informed, deepens through reflection, and is sustained through everyday practice. At its core, it asks us to hold curiosity and responsibility, embracing that meaningful change lies not in changing neurodivergent people, but in reshaping environments, expectations, and relationships.
About the authors
Andriana and Effie are Advisory Teachers for Inclusion and Neurodiversity, based in London, UK. Their work focuses on supporting neurodivergent children, their families, and educational settings in the Early Years. Together, they founded ThalloMinds, to make neurodiversity-affirming, strengths- and rights-based approaches accessible in Greece. Their work is closely aligned with occupational therapy through a shared focus on participation, autonomy, sensory processing, and the interaction between individuals and their environments. In this article, they explore what neurodiversity means, why language matters, and how neuroaffirming principles can inform reflective and ethical professional practice. Find more about ThalloMinds here: www.thallominds.com
References
Chapman, R. (2023). Empire of Normality. Pluto Press (UK).
Dundon, R. (2023). A Therapist’s Guide to Neurodiversity Affirming Practice with Children and Young People. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Edgar, H., & Adkin, T. (2025, August 11). Embracing neurodiversity affirmative practice: A path to inclusive support for autistic people. National Autistic Society. https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/professional-practice/embracing-neurodiversity-affirmative-practice
Milton, D. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: the “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
Rose, K. (2024, September 3). What is Neurodiversity? The Autistic Advocate. https://theautisticadvocate.com/what-is-neurodiversity-new/
Twinley, R. (2024). Neurodivergent affirming practice in occupational therapy: Scoping review and qualitative content analysis of the literature. Neurodiversity, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330241301740
Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Autonomous Press.