This paper examines how neurodivergent students experience university life across diverse European and international contexts, and how these experiences should reshape teaching, assessment and student support. Drawing on two foundational studies conducted at Ulster University (United Kingdom) and Maynooth University (Ireland), and situating these within a wider international programme involving Ireland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, the United States, Canada and Australia, the paper offers a comparative perspective on shared challenges and emerging inclusive practices. Together, the studies contribute to European debates on inclusion, equity and quality enhancement in HE.

Foundational Project 1: Ulster University (United Kingdom)

This project investigates the lived experiences of neurodivergent learners and examines how systemic, curricular and cultural factors shape student engagement, belonging and academic success. Findings are positioned alongside international studies across multiple participating countries to illuminate convergences and divergences in neurodivergent students’ experiences globally.

The guiding research question asks: What are the lived experiences of neurodiverse learners in higher education, and where do gaps in support and inclusion remain?

Theoretical Framework

The project draws on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a system‑level approach to proactive inclusion, enabling educators to anticipate variability rather than respond reactively to individual needs. Andragogical and heutagogical perspectives (Friedman et. al. 2024) on adult learning further inform the study, emphasising autonomy, self‑direction and flexible pathways while recognising that appropriate structure remains essential for many learners (Clouder, et. al, 2020). A strengths‑based lens guides interpretation of student narratives and challenges deficit‑based constructions of neurodiversity, foregrounding capability, agency and self‑advocacy.

Methodological Approach

Semi‑structured interviews were used to gather rich accounts of coping strategies, academic engagement, sensory and cognitive barriers, disclosure decisions and interactions with support ecosystems. Descriptive analysis identified cohort-level patterns, while reflexive thematic analysis generated cross‑cutting themes and captured cultural and contextual nuances. Triangulation strengthened analytical robustness, and rigorous GDPR‑compliant data governance ensured ethical integrity. Replication of the study across multiple countries provided a comparative lens, facilitating examination of how policy regimes, language and institutional culture influence neurodivergent students’ experiences.

Foundational Project 2: Maynooth University (Ireland)

The Maynooth University project, Building a Neurodiverse Community in Higher Education, examined neurodiversity through a whole‑institution lens. Rather than focusing solely on individual student accounts, the project investigated how organisational culture, staff development and institutional norms shape experiences of inclusion or exclusion for neurodivergent learners. The guiding research question asks: How can higher education institutions develop neuroaffirmative cultures that move beyond deficit‑oriented and accommodation‑driven responses to support belonging, participation and success?

Theoretical Framework

The study adopts a neurodiversity‑affirming, strengths‑based perspective that challenges deficit framings of disability (Evans, et.al 2023). Universal Design for Learning again provides a system‑level blueprint for designing curricula, assessment and learning environments that reduce reliance on disclosure and anticipate learner variability from the outset.

Methodological Approach

A mixed‑methods design incorporated staff and student engagement activities, evaluation of professional learning initiatives and analysis of community‑building interventions. This approach enabled examination of how institutional practices and cultural norms influence neurodivergent students’ experiences at a systemic level. The findings align with contemporary calls for responsibility for inclusion to be situated at the institutional rather than individual level, reinforcing the need for sustainable, organisation‑wide approaches to neuroaffirmative practice.

European and International Dimension

By placing the two foundational projects in dialogue and situating them within a broader multinational research programme, the paper analyses how higher education systems across Europe, North America and Australia conceptualise and operationalise neurodiversity inclusion. Comparative analysis of policy architectures, support systems and pedagogical approaches identifies transferable models and context‑specific adaptations. This international perspective strengthens the paper’s contribution to ongoing European efforts to enhance equity, quality and inclusion in higher education.

This study adopts a mixed-methods design to capture the complexity of neurodiverse students’ experiences in higher education. The approach integrates quantitative and qualitative strands to ensure both breadth and depth of understanding, aligning with methodological pluralism advocated by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2018). Quantitative Phase - Biographical Study The first phase involves a short demographic and biographical survey administered via Jisc Online Surveys. This instrument collects contextual data such as age, course of study, neurodivergent identity, and prior educational experiences. The survey also records co-occurrence rates of neurodiverse conditions, providing a foundational dataset for descriptive analysis and triangulation with qualitative findings. Qualitative Phase – Semi-Structured Interviews The second phase consists of semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants (approximately 12 from the survey cohort of 100). Interviews, lasting 30–45 minutes, are conducted either in person or via Microsoft Teams, depending on participant preference. The interview schedule uses open-ended questions to elicit rich narratives about academic engagement, coping strategies, disclosure practices, and institutional support. Sampling and Inclusion Criteria Participants are self-selected neurodivergent students. Inclusion criteria include self-identification or formal diagnosis of neurodivergence and active enrolment in undergraduate or postgraduate study. Recruitment occurs through student support networks and neurodiversity advocacy groups. Data Analysis Quantitative data will be analyzed descriptively to identify patterns and trends across the cohort. Qualitative data will undergo thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework, supported by NVivo software for coding and theme development. Integration of both data types enables triangulation, enhancing validity and generating nuanced insights into lived experiences. International Dimension This study forms part of a global comparative research initiative replicated in 11 countries, enabling cross-national analysis of systemic barriers and inclusive practices. Findings will contribute to international discourse on Universal Design for Learning and neurodiversity inclusion in higher education. Ethical Considerations The methodology incorporates robust ethical safeguards: informed consent, voluntary participation, the right to withdraw, and GDPR-compliant data storage. Anonymity is maintained by separating biographical and interview data.

Across both institutional contexts, the research highlights persistent systemic barriers for neurodivergent students, alongside evidence of the enabling potential of proactive, institution-wide neuroaffirmative practice. By synthesising insights from two completed foundational projects and extending these through international comparison, the paper advances an ecological understanding of neurodiversity in higher education and supports a shift from reactive accommodation toward inclusive, strengths-based and systemically embedded approaches. Findings will focus on the emotional and cognitive impact of these barriers, alongside the resilience and adaptive strategies students employ, such as metacognitive planning, assistive technology use, and strengths-based approaches rooted in special interests. A key conclusion will be that current institutional models remain reactive, privileging accommodations over proactive inclusion. Comparative analysis across both countries will identify both common challenges and culturally specific practices, offering a nuanced understanding of inclusion in global higher education contexts. The impact of this study extends beyond academic discourse. The institutional level, findings will inform policy reform. For educators, the research will provide actionable strategies to foster neuroinclusive classrooms, while student services can use insights to enhance advisory models and wellbeing support. Internationally, the project will contribute to European and global conversations on equity and diversity, shaping collaborative frameworks for inclusive education. Ultimately, the study aims to shift the narrative from deficit-based models to strengths-based paradigms, positioning neurodiversity as an asset rather than a challenge. By amplifying student voice and grounding recommendations in lived experience, the research will drive systemic change, ensuring that neurodivergent learners can thrive academically and socially in higher education.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. Clouder, L., Karakus, M., Cinotti, A., Ferreyra, M.V., Fierros, G.A. & Rojo, P. (2020). Neurodiversity in higher education: a narrative synthesis. Higher Education, 80(4), 757–778. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge. Evans, D., Granson, M., Langford, D. & Hirsch, S. (2023). Autism spectrum disorder: Reconceptualising support for neurodiverse students in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(2), 243–257. Friedman, Z.L. & Nash-Luckenbach, D. (2024). Has the time come for Heutagogy? Supporting neurodivergent learners in higher education. Higher Education, 87(6), 1905–1920. Gillespie-Lynch, K., Bublitz, D., Donachie, A., Wong, V., Brooks, P.J. & D’Onofrio, J. (2017). “For a long time our voices have been hushed”: Using student perspectives to develop supports for neurodiverse college students. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 544. Griffin, E. & Pollak, D. (2009). Student experiences of neurodiversity in higher education: insights from the BRAINHE project. Dyslexia, 15(1), 23–41. Schwichtenberg, A.J., Mirah, K., Janis, A., West, M. & Atkin, A.L. (2025). Diversity in Education Study (DivES): Investigating a neurodiversity module in higher education. PLoS One, 20(7), e0327379.