Neurodivergent Social Work Educators: Implications for Social Work Research

Background and purpose:

Neurodivergent educators remain largely absent from social work and higher education scholarship, despite increasing attention to neurodiversity among students (Doyle, 2020; Janse van Rensburg & Liang, 2023). This absence has implications for knowledge production, pedagogy, and research agendas within social work, where implicit norms of professionalism, communication, and relational labour shape what counts as legitimate practice and scholarship (Giroux, 2010; Liasidou, 2012). While social work emphasizes equity and anti-oppressive practice (Dominelli, 2002), the experiences of neurodivergent educators remain underexamined. The purpose of this study was to examine how neurodivergent social work educators experience teaching and institutional expectations, and to consider the implications of these experiences for social work research.

Methods:

This study used collaborative autoethnography, a qualitative approach grounded in self-inquiry, reflection, and collective meaning making (Chang et al., 2013; Chang, 2021). Data were drawn from two co-developed teaching presentations focused on neurodivergent educator experiences, followed by iterative written reflections, dialogue, and analytic writing among four neurodivergent social work educators across career stages. Two extended narrative accounts served as primary data, with all authors contributing to analysis through reflexive dialogue and collaborative interpretation. Analysis was loosely guided by reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) and informed by the neurodiversity paradigm (Singer, 2017), double empathy theory (Milton, 2012), and triple empathy theory (Shaw et al., 2023).

Results:

Four interrelated themes were identified. First, professionalism operated as a neurotypical standard, where communication style, responsiveness, and affect were evaluated through narrow and implicit expectations (Hennekam et al., 2025). Second, a hidden curriculum shaped learning through consequences, with expectations becoming visible only after mistakes (Kärner & Schneider, 2024). Third, chrononormativity privileged rigid assumptions about pace, timing, and productivity (Vaccaro, 2023), contributing to pressure, overwork, and heightened vigilance. Fourth, institutional power and precarity produced a gap between empathy and capacity, where educators recognized student needs but lacked structural support or flexibility to respond in ways aligned with social work values.

Conclusions and Implications:

Findings highlight that neurodivergent educators are both shaped by and respond to institutional norms that influence teaching, inclusion, and knowledge production in social work. The absence of these perspectives in research risks reinforcing individual-level framings of access while leaving institutional conditions unexamined (Janse van Rensburg & Liang, 2023). This study contributes to social work research by centering neurodivergent educator experiences and extending empathy-based frameworks to faculty roles and academic labour. Implications include expanding research agendas to include educator perspectives, critically examining norms of professionalism and competence, and attending to institutional conditions that shape teaching practice. Aligning social work education and research with commitments to equity and inclusion requires greater attention to the experiences, contributions, and support needs of neurodivergent educators.