Universities recognise the importance of student belonging. It appears in strategic plans, retention frameworks, and student experience dashboards. Yet the concept is often treated as if it were universal—something all students and staff experience in roughly the same way, and something that can be accomplished through welcome weeks and social events.
A new participatory action research study by Hamilton, Williams, Neilson and Petty (2026) at York St John University disrupts that assumption. Drawing on 152 anonymous campus-wide contributions and 13 in‑depth interviews, the inclusive research team argue that neurodivergent belonging is not a matter of social integration. Instead, it is a dynamic, context-dependent negotiation shaped by sensory environments, institutional processes, and the visibility of neurodivergence itself.
One university member said:
“it sometimes feels like a full-time job being neurodivergent at university just to get your support.”
This sentence captures the heart of the study: belonging should not be a workload owned by any one individual.
Why belonging needs reframing
The paper opens by noting that mainstream belonging research often assumes that assimilating to what peers and institutional culture expects is the primary route to feeling “at home” in higher education. But for neurodivergent people—autistic students, those with ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and others—this framing can be exclusionary.
The findings highlight that “unidimensional conceptualisations of belonging as social integration within a dominant university culture risk excluding diverse student groups”. This is especially true when belonging is implicitly tied to conformity, sociability, or ease within neurotypical norms.
The study instead positions belonging as:
- multidimensional
- relational
- dynamic
- context-specific
This aligns with emerging critiques of belonging as a tool of assimilation rather than inclusion.
A participatory approach that changes what belonging means
One of the study’s methodological strengths is its participatory design. Neurodivergent students and alumni formed a Participatory Advisory Group (PAG), shaping the research questions, recruitment, analysis, and dissemination.
The research team intentionally avoided diagnostic labels in recruitment materials, instead describing common neurodivergent experiences. This allowed people who were undiagnosed, self‑identified, multiply-neurodivergent, or hesitant to disclose to participate.
This approach is not just inclusive—it is epistemologically significant. It centres experiential knowledge and challenges the gatekeeping that often shapes neurodiversity research.
Three determinants of neurodivergent belonging
- Neurodivergent representation as a shared responsibility
Belonging means neurodivergence is visible, normalised, and appreciated as a valid way of being and learning. Participants emphasised:
- identity spaces where they could stim, regulate, and unmask
- seeing neurodivergent staff in leadership roles
- authentic representation in university communications
As one staff member explained,
“the more people do it, the more people feel like ‘Oh, I could do that as well’.”
Representation was not symbolic—it was infrastructural.
- Meaningful inclusive practices
Belonging was fostered when there were:
- multiple ways of engaging with learning
- people who checked in and believed them
- inclusive design by default—not inclusion on request
One student wrote:
“I have had a couple of members of teaching staff that have made me belong and feel valid and that has changed everything.”
Crucially, these inclusive practices reduced the exhausting burden of self‑advocacy.
- Capacity to navigate space, time and transition
The sensory and logistical demands of campus life shaped belonging. Neurodivergent people valued:
- predictable and customisable study spaces
- quiet routes and places
- recognition of commutes, housing, and other contributors to being well on campus
One student said:
“I think if an area is hostile to you in a sensory sense, it’s difficult for it not to feel hostile in a community sense as well. So having a space that accommodates you I think is quite key to feeling like you are allowed to be there.”
Belonging is inseparable from the built environment.
The five-question model of neurodivergent belonging
A conceptual model of belonging is framed around five questions that neurodivergent people continually negotiate:
- Can I see it? – Is neurodivergence visibly welcomed, represented, and valued?
- Can I receive it? – Will support be accessible, compassionate, and shared rather than burdensome?
- Can we talk? – Are communication norms reciprocal, respectful, and free from stereotype threat?
- Can I exist here? – Are sensory environments tolerable, predictable, and adjustable?
- Can I thrive here? – Are systems flexible enough to allow divergent strengths to flourish?
This model reframes belonging as an active construction, not a passive or static state.
Implications for universities
The study offers a clear message: universities must shift from reactive accommodations to anticipatory, systemic inclusion. Key recommendations include:
- Embedding flexibility in teaching, assessment, and administrative processes
- Creating and protecting low-sensory spaces
- Supporting neurodivergent peer networks and staff communities
- Training all staff in neurodiversity-affirming practice
- Designing systems that do not rely on effortful self‑advocacy
The team argues that “small, achievable changes can cascade into meaningful gains for neurodivergent people at university.” This is a powerful counterpoint to narratives that frame inclusion as costly or complex.
Why this study matters
This research is a significant contribution to the neurodiversity-in-HE literature for three reasons:
- It centres neurodivergent voices through participatory design.
- It challenges normative assumptions about belonging in education.
- It provides a practical, theoretically grounded model that universities can use to design full systems.
It reframes belonging not as assimilation into neurotypical norms but as authentic acceptance.
For academics, professional services staff, and university leaders, this study is a call to action: belonging is not a feeling we can demand from students and staff. It is a condition we must collectively create.
Hamilton, L. G., Williams, J., Neilson, D., & Petty, S. (2026). Inclusive Neurodiverse Campuses: A Participatory Approach to Understanding Neurodivergent Belonging in Higher Education. Neurodiversity. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330261431356