Evidence Domain

Neurodiversity

What it studies

The natural variation in human neurocognitive functioning — including autism, ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia — and the framework that treats this variation as difference to be designed for rather than deficit to be corrected. In workplace terms: how sensory, attentional and processing differences interact with environments and policies.

Why it matters

A meaningful share of every workforce processes environments differently — sensory sensitivity, distractibility, need for predictability — and conventional workplace design has largely assumed a neurotypical median. Designing for neurocognitive variation improves environments measurably for the whole population; ignoring it excludes silently and legally consequentially.

Questions it answers
  • How does sensory and attentional variation distribute across a workforce?
  • Which environmental conditions disable which people, and which enable them?
  • What do predictability, retreat and control mean as design requirements?
  • How can needs be expressed without forced disclosure?
Evidence sources
  • Neurodiversity and inclusive-design research (an emerging, uneven literature)
  • Consent-based self-expressed need data (Workplace Passport, in aggregate)
  • Sensory processing research
  • Lived-experience and participatory research
Design and policy implications

Sensory zoning and low-stimulus provision as base kit requirements; predictability and legibility in wayfinding and booking; consent-based channels for expressing needs; environmental variety so adjustment doesn't require disclosure.

Related methods
Common misuse

Two symmetrical failures: tokenism (one 'sensory room' as the neurodiversity strategy) and diagnostic overreach (assessments claiming to determine individuals' ideal environments from profiles). The evidence base is young and heterogeneous; interventions should be framed as inclusive design, never as clinical provision, and no profile determines a person's ideal desk.

Further research

Workplace-specific neurodiversity research is early-stage: prevalence estimates vary widely, intervention evidence is largely qualitative, and the field is actively developing. Claims should be calibrated accordingly.