This paper takes the entanglement of coloniality and neurodiversity as a conceptual starting point for rethinking the changing conditions of knowing and acting in education research. Rather than treating neurodiversity as a contemporary conceptual innovation detached from historical genealogies of power, the paper argues that the term as an epistemic concept carries a history that mirrors broader transformations within post/colonial knowledge and classification regimes.

The central guiding question is:

Neurodiversity as epistemic shift or colonial continuity? Rethinking disability and difference through post/colonial critique.

The term neurodiversity already implies plurality. Its very lexical structure presupposes that cognitive, sensory, and behavioral differences are heterogeneous and non-hierarchical. Historically, however, this pluralistic orientation emerged only gradually. Earlier terminology, such as ‘disorder’ reflected medicalized and deficit-oriented knowledge regimes rooted in colonial notions of rationality and developmental normality (Afeworki Abay & Soldatic, 2024; Quijano, 2007). Over time, neurodiversity evolved into an explicitly pluralizing and resource-oriented concept, while keeping its original structure as an everchanging epistemic concept (Singer 1999, 2022). This conceptual transformation parallels the broader shifts described in post/colonial theory: from classificatory systems that stabilized colonial hierarchies of mind and body towards approaches that foreground plurality, contextuality, and epistemic justice (Escobar & Frye, 2020; Mignolo, 2009; Santos et al., 2007).

When placed within post/colonial frameworks, neurodiversity reveals its entanglement. While it signals a shift towards pluralistic and inclusive epistemologies that are aligned with cognitive justice, its uptake in academia, clinical practice and education remains embedded in colonial epistemic infrastructures. These infrastructures include diagnostic norms, behavioral expectations and Eurocentric ideals of rationality and the 'ideal' learner (Mignolo, 2023; Mottron & Gagnon, 2023).

Understanding neurodiversity in coloniality as an interconnected formation offers a valuable analytical perspective. It reveals how neurodivergent modes of knowledge have been deemed illegitimate or inadequate through classification systems originating from colonial projects that sought to categorize populations. At the same time, it emphasizes the potential of neurodiversity to challenge these epistemic structures by reframing difference as an expression of epistemic plurality rather than a deficit. Especially since the Neurodiversity-Movement sees itself in the tradition of other civil-rights movements (Grummt, 2023), and claims social justice among other dimensions of human heterogeneity, such as Race, Class or Gender (Singer, 2022).

At the same time, the concept of neurodiversity itself is not epistemically neutral. Its emergence, circulation and global uptake are largely rooted in the knowledge contexts of Global North countries. Implicit understandings of cognition, difference and the self, risk to reproduce epistemic hierarchies between a knowing center and a marginalized periphery (Nair et al, 2024). 

Here, the concept of epistemic positionality serves as a key analytical lens (Rose, 1997). It highlights how researchers, institutions and educational systems jointly create the conditions that make neurodiversity meaningful. This is particularly pertinent in European contexts, where education systems (still) rely heavily on diagnostic regimes and comparative frameworks that universalize epistemic assumptions with colonial genealogies (Knobloch & Drerup, 2022). Recognizing these entanglements requires a re-evaluation of how educational research understands, categorizes and acts upon cognitive differences.

The paper aims to:

-          Conceptualize the entanglement of coloniality and neurodiversity as foundational to understanding contemporary educational knowledge production.

-          Examine whether the pluralizing trajectory of the neurodiversity concept can be seen as a progressive shift towards post/colonial epistemologies.

-          Explore methodological openings for educational research seeking to 'know and act otherwise', through plural, relational and critically reflexive epistemic practices.

By placing the historical and conceptual evolution of neurodiversity in direct dialogue with post/colonial analyses of knowledge and power, the paper will contribute to a rethink of the epistemic conditions and potential of education research in the context of global and European inequalities.

The contribution's methodological orientation is explicitly theoretical-conceptual and epistemological. Rather than approaching neurodiversity as an empirical category, it considers it to be a historical, political and epistemological formation whose development is inextricably linked to colonial knowledge regimes. The analysis is framed by three methodological commitments: 1. Genealogical and historical-epistemic analysis This approach traces the conceptual evolution from deficit-based, medicalized labels (e.g. 'disorder' or 'impairment') to the more plural, resource-oriented understanding implied by the concept of 'neurodiversity'. Building on the work of postcolonial thinkers, this genealogy is not merely viewed as a semantic shift, but as a transformation within broader epistemic orders characterized by coloniality. The analysis reveals how colonial knowledge formations and classification projects shaped todays taxonomies of ability and normality. 2. Post/colonial critique of classificatory infrastructures The concept of neurodiversity is examined within the context of global systems of knowledge production, including diagnostic regimes (e.g. DSM, ICD), international policy frameworks (e.g. UN, WHO, OECD) and educational assessment cultures. These infrastructures are considered sites where colonial rationalities persist, reinforcing normative beliefs about cognition, behavior, and 'the typical learner'. Methodologically, this involves analyzing how such infrastructures render some neurodivergent modes of knowing legible while marginalizing others. 3. Epistemic positionality and reflexive methodology Building on reflexive methodologies developed in decolonial and feminist epistemologies (Haraway, 1988; Spivak, 1988), the analysis foregrounds the epistemic positionality of European researchers and institutions. This includes examining how European research traditions universalize particular epistemic standards and how such univerzalisations shape the uptake of neurodiversity within educational discourse. The method treats research itself as a site of knowledge production implicated in colonial entanglements. 4. Relational and non-hegemonic comparison In this study, comparison is a central methodological operation, as the meaning of neurodiversity is produced through implicit and explicit acts of comparison across contexts, norms and knowledge formations. Rather than juxtaposing cases or contexts in a linear or evaluative manner, comparison is conceptualized as an interactive process (Ascroft, 2025) that considers how epistemic assumptions about cognition, normality and difference emerge in relation to one another. Treating comparison as an object of analysis foregrounds how comparative operations contribute to the stabilization or disruption of epistemic hierarchies. This aligns the methodological approach with the post/colonial critique central to the study. Together, these methodological orientations provide a coherent approach to analyzing the coloniality–neurodiversity entanglement as a dynamic epistemic formation shaping contemporary educational research.

Three main insights are expected from the contribution: 1. Neurodiversity as a historically and colonially entangled epistemic concept The analysis reveals that, despite being presented as a pluralizing concept, neurodiversity is rooted in epistemic orders with colonial genealogies that persist in shaping our understanding of cognition and difference within European education systems. In Europe, neurodiversity is increasingly informing diagnostic categories, assessment practices and inclusion policies. These forms of knowledge influence pedagogical and institutional action by determining who is recognized as a learner, what support is considered appropriate, and how difference is managed. Consequently, neurodiversity functions as a contested epistemic site where pluralizing aspirations intersect with historically entrenched norms of normality and development. 2. Limits of European educational research: inherited epistemic conditions of knowing and acting By examining the colonial assumptions underlying the prevailing understanding of cognition and behavior, this study shows that European educational research frequently relies on epistemic repertoires that remain unmarked by history. These repertoires influence how data is interpreted, comparisons are drawn and educational interventions are justified. Consequently, research-based knowledge informs educational practice in teacher education, policy and other areas, potentially reproducing epistemic hierarchies unintentionally. Therefore, making these conditions of knowing explicit is crucial for responsible educational action in Europe. 3. Toward epistemically reflexive ways of knowing and acting in European contexts Recognizing the interconnection between coloniality and neurodiversity requires a methodological shift in European educational research: • Towards plural and relational forms of cognition and difference. • Towards reflexive engagement with epistemic positionality in research and practice; • and towards educational practices that irritate hierarchical classification and universalization. These approaches allow European educational research to reconsider how knowledge informs action, facilitating more context-sensitive and non-hegemonic interactions with diversity in a changing social and epistemic landscape.

Afeworki Abay, R., & Soldatic, K. (2024). The Coloniality of Disability. In T. Chataika & D. Goodley (Hrsg.), The Routledge handbook of postcolonial disabilities studies. Routledge. Ascroft, E. (2025). Intra-acting with the self: Diffracting reflexivity in action-based research. Educational Action Research, 33(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2024.2424286 Escobar, A., & Frye, D. (2020). Pluriversal politics: The real and the possible. Duke University press. Grummt, M. (2023). Einführung in das Paradigma der Neurodiversität. In C. Lindmeier, M. Grummt, & M. Richter (Hrsg.), Neurodiversität und Autismus (1. Aufl., S. 11–28). W. Kohlhammer GmbH. https://doi.org/10.17433/978-3-17-041267-5 Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066 Knobloch, P. D. Th., & Drerup, J. (Hrsg.). (2022). Bildung in postkolonialen Konstellationen: Erziehungswissenschaftliche Analysen und pädagogische Perspektiven (1. Aufl.). transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839456699 Mignolo, W. (2023). The Colonial Matrix of Power. In C. O. Christiansen, M. L. Machado- Guichon, S. Mercader, O. B. Hunt, & P. Jha (Hrsg.), Talking About Global Inequality (S. 39–46). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08042-5_5 Mignolo, W. D. (2009). Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(7–8), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275 Mottron, L., & Gagnon, D. (2023). Prototypical autism: New diagnostic criteria and asymmetrical bifurcation model. Acta Psychologica, 237, 103938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103938 Nair, V. K. k.; Farah, W.; Boveda, M. (2024): Is neurodiversity a Global Northern White paradigm? In: Autism: the international journal of research and practice 30 (2), S. 544–551. DOI: 10.1177/13623613241280835. Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601164353 Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913297673302122 Santos, B. de S., Nunes, J. A., & Meneses, M. P. (2007). Introduction. Opening Up the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of Difference. In B. de S. Santos (Hrsg.), Another Knowledge is Possible. Beyond Northern Epistemologies. (S. xix–lxii). Singer, J. (2022). Reflections on the Neurodiversity Paradigm: Neurodiversity: Definition and Discussion. Reflections on the Neurodiversity Paradigm. https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/p/what.html Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In N. Carry & L. Grossberg (Hrsg.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (S. 271–313). University of Illiniois Press.