The concept of neurodiversity has gained global traction as a framework that challenges deficit-oriented views of neurological difference and foregrounds diversity as a natural and valuable aspect of human variation (Kapp, 2020; Rosqvist et al., 2020; Singer, 2017). In the German-speaking context, however, the term remains relatively new, contested, and in the process of translation. Emerging uses often reflect biomedical and psychological traditions that interpret neurodiversity primarily through a biological lens. Furthermore, scholars from different areas in education research question the concept and its relevance for the education context. This development contrasts with international origins of the concept in social justice movements and critical disability studies, where neurodiversity represents a call for recognition and structural inclusion. The contribution situates the current German debate within this tension and asks how educational research can reclaim and reinterpret the concept as part of a broader, holistic understanding of inclusive learning, communication, and development. This contribution traces how the first German-language publications on neurodiversity sparked a debate within educational science and special needs education that continues to call for discussion. Accusations of biologism, a lack of theoretical references and ignorance of the perspectives of those affected are being voiced and are also impacting public discourse (Lindmeier et al., 2023; Zimmermann, 2025). These lines of conflict will be analysed and traced in order to identify possible weaknesses and develop clarifying arguments. Preliminary conceptual analysis suggests that the neurodiversity discourse in Germany is characterised by fragmentation. Biomedical interpretations influence public and academic discussions, often detaching the concept from its political origins in self-advocacy and disability rights. Educational discourse, by contrast, shows an emerging effort to integrate neurodiversity into inclusive pedagogical frameworks that emphasise participation, relationship, and contextual understanding. The study identifies emerging hybrid discourses that bridge medical, pedagogical, and social perspectives, though tensions around legitimacy, terminology, and advocacy persist. The analysis concludes that neurodiversity in Germany currently operates as a discursive boundary object—flexible, contested, and politically charged. For educational research, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity: to resist the narrowing effects of biomedical interpretation and to articulate a relational, holistic understanding of human variation. By reframing neurodiversity as a socio-educational concept grounded in dialogue and participation, the German discourse can contribute to a more inclusive vision of learning and teaching.

Kapp, S. K. (Ed.). (2020). Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0 Lindmeier, C., Grummt, M., & Richter, M. (Eds). (2023). Neurodiversität und Autismus (Vol. 1). Kohlhammer. Rosqvist, H. B., Chown, N., & Stenning, A. (Eds). (2020). Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm (1st edn). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429322297 Singer, J. (2017). NeuroDiversity: The Birth of an Idea (2.). Zimmermann, D. (2025). Gastkommentar: Die neue Dominanz von organischen Verursachungstheorien unter dem Gewand der Neurodiversität – pädagogische Einwände. Zeitschrift Für Heilpädagogik, 76(1), 30–32.