Neurodivergent research students: themes from a systematic review

Updated Sep 10, 2026

Research-degree provision should be examined from the perspective of neurodivergent students as well as through institutional processes. Diana Weiting Tan, Chris Edwards, Inger Mewburn, Kate Simpson, Amanda A. Webster and Charlotte Brownlow address the evidence in Understanding the experiences of neurodivergent research students: a mixed methods systematic review.

What the review reports

Published online in Studies in Higher Education on 18 October 2025, the review brings together 31 articles, including empirical research and reflections on lived experience. The authors distinguish research students from the taught-course populations that receive more attention in existing work.

Their analysis identifies eight themes:

• Academic cultures, structures and expectations.
• Sensory and environmental challenges.
• Executive functioning.
• Insufficient support and accommodations.
• Relationships with others.
• Ableism and disclosure.
• Mental health.
• Embracing neurodivergence.

The authors report continuing institutional barriers alongside some strengths associated with neurodivergent thinking. They call for changes to research-degree provision that better recognise and support students.

The list should not be read as a ranking of problems, a prevalence estimate or proof that a particular intervention will work.

Using the themes locally

The following are editorial suggestions for local investigation.

A doctoral college could ask students which expectations are clear, which research environments suit their needs, and what makes support easier or harder to use. Offer ways to contribute in writing and at a chosen time as well as through discussion. Ask students which formats they prefer, and explain what will happen to their responses.

Use the themes as prompts, leaving room for experiences they do not capture. Invite accounts of strengths and helpful conditions alongside barriers. Avoid assuming that a diagnostic category predicts an individual’s needs, or that a comment permits an analyst to infer a disability.

Before comparing cohorts, check whether participation and confidentiality support that comparison. The student comment analysis governance checklist can help structure those decisions. Follow up with the relevant students and services before interpreting a pattern as an explanation for research progress or wellbeing.

FAQ

Do 31 articles mean the review measures how common each barrier is?

No. A mixed evidence synthesis and thematic findings do not establish a population estimate for each theme.

Should institutions ask students to disclose a diagnosis in feedback?

Do not infer that requirement from this review. Decide what information the feedback exercise actually needs, let students control what they share, and use established institutional processes for requests for individual support.

Reference

Diana Weiting Tan, Chris Edwards, Inger Mewburn, Kate Simpson, Amanda A. Webster and Charlotte Brownlow (2025). “Understanding the experiences of neurodivergent research students: a mixed methods systematic review.” Studies in Higher Education. Publisher article.