{"id":76726,"date":"2025-05-01T00:04:17","date_gmt":"2025-05-01T04:04:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/world.edu\/?p=76726"},"modified":"2025-05-01T00:04:17","modified_gmt":"2025-05-01T04:04:17","slug":"is-your-phd-supervisor-neurodivergent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/is-your-phd-supervisor-neurodivergent\/","title":{"rendered":"Is your PhD supervisor neurodivergent?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Recently, some colleagues and I released a paper about the experiences of neurodivergent PhD students. It\u2019s a systematic review of the literature to date, which is currently under review, but available via pre-print\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Doing this paper was an exercise in mixed feelings.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It was an absolute joy to work with my colleagues, who knew far more about this topic than me and taught me (finally!) how to do a proper systematic review using\u00a0Covidence<\/a>. Thanks\u00a0Dr Diana Tan<\/a>,\u00a0Dr Chris Edwards<\/a>,\u00a0Associate Professor Kate Simpson<\/a>,\u00a0Associate Professor Amanda A. Webster<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Professor Charlotte Brownlow<\/a>\u00a0(who got the band together in the first place).<\/p>\n

But reading each and every paper published about neurodivergent PhD students provoked strong feelings of rage and frustration.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(These feelings only increased, with a tinge of fear added in, when I read of plans for the US health department to make a \u2018list\u2019 of Autistic people?! Reading what is going on there is frankly terrifying \u2013 solidarity to all)<\/p>\n

We all know what needs to be done to make research degrees more accessible. Make expectations explicit. Create flexible policies. Value diverse thinking styles. Implement\u00a0Universal Design Principles<\/a>\u2026 These suggestions appear in\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0after\u00a0report<\/a>, I\u2019ve ranted on the blog\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>, yet real change remains frustratingly elusive.<\/p>\n

So why don\u2019t these great ideas become reality? Here\u2019s some thoughts on barriers that keep neurodivergent-friendly changes from taking hold:<\/p>\n

The Myth of Meritocracy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Academia clings to the fiction that the current system rewards pure intellectual merit. Acknowledging the need for accessibility requires admitting that the playing field isn\u2019t level.<\/p>\n

Many senior academics succeeded in the current system and genuinely believe \u201cif I could do it, anyone can\u2026 if they work hard enough\u201d. They are either 1) failing to recognise their neurotypical privilege, or 2) not acknowledging the cost of masking their own neurodivergence (I\u2019ll get to this in a moment).<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve talked to many academics about things we could do \u2013\u00a0like getting rid of the dissertation<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 but too many of us are secretly proud of our own trauma. The harshness of the PhD has been compared to a badge of honour that we wear proudly \u2013 and expect others to earn.<\/p>\n

Resource Scarcity (Real and Perceived)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Universities often respond to suggestions about increased accessibility measures with budget concerns. The vibe is often: \u201cWe\u2019d love to offer more support, but who will pay for it?\u201d. However, many accommodations (like flexible deadlines or allowing students to work remotely) cost little, or even nothing.<\/p>\n

Frequently, the real issue isn\u2019t resources but priorities of the powerful.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no denying universities (in Australia, and elsewhere) are often cash strapped. The academic hunger games are real. However, in the fight for resources, power dynamics dictate who gets fed and who goes without.<\/p>\n

I wish we would just be honest about our choices \u2013 some people in universities still have huge travel budgets. The catering at some events is still pretty good. Some people seem to avoid every hiring freeze. There are consistent patterns in how resources are distributed. It\u2019s the gaslighting that pisses me off. If we really want to, we can do most things.<\/p>\n

We have to want to do something about this.<\/p>\n

Administrative Inertia<\/strong><\/p>\n

Changing established processes in a university is like turning a battleship with a canoe paddle. Approval pathways are long and winding. For example, altering a single line in the research award rules at ANU requires approval from parliament (yes \u2013 the politicians actually have to get together and vote. Luckily we are not as dysfunctional in Australia as other places\u2026 yet).<\/p>\n

By the time a solution is implemented, the student who needed it has likely graduated \u2013 or dropped out. This creates a vicious cycle where the support staff, who see multiple generations of students suffer the same way, can get burned out and stop pushing for change.<\/p>\n

The Individualisation of Disability<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Universities tend to treat neurodivergence as an individual problem requiring individual accommodations rather than recognising systemic barriers. This puts the burden on students to disclose, request support, and advocate for themselves \u2013 precisely the executive function and communication challenges many neurodivergent students struggle with.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s akin to building a university with only stairs, then offering individual students a piggyback ride instead of installing ramps. I\u2019ve met plenty of people who simply get so exhausted they don\u2019t bother applying for the accomodations they desperately need, and then end up dropping out anyway.<\/p>\n

Fear of Lowering \u2018Standards\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Perhaps the most insidious barrier is the mistaken belief that accommodations somehow \u201clower standards.\u201d I\u2019ve heard academics worrying that flexible deadlines will \u201cgive some students an unfair advantage\u201d or that making expectations explicit somehow \u201cspoon-feeds\u201d students.<\/p>\n

The fear of \u201clowering standards\u201d becomes even more puzzling when you look at how PhD requirements have inflated over time.<\/p>\n

Anyone who\u2019s spent time in university archives knows that doctoral standards aren\u2019t fixed \u2013 they\u2019re constantly evolving. Pull a dissertation from the 1950s or 60s off the shelf and you\u2019ll likely find something remarkably slim compared to today\u2019s tomes. Many were essentially extended literature reviews with modest empirical components. Today, we expect multiple studies, theoretical innovations, methodological sophistication, and immediate publishability \u2013 all while completing within strict time limits on ever-shrinking funding.<\/p>\n

The standards haven\u2019t just increased; they\u2019ve multiplied. So when universities resist accommodations that might \u201ccompromise standards,\u201d we should ask:\u00a0which era\u2019s standards are we protecting?\u00a0<\/em>Certainly not the ones under which most people supervising today had to meet.<\/p>\n

The irony is that by making the PhD more accessible to neurodivergent thinkers, we might actually be raising standards \u2013 allowing truly innovative minds to contribute rather than filtering them out through irrelevant barriers like arbitrary deadlines or neurotypical communication expectations. The real threat to academic standards isn\u2019t accommodation \u2013 it\u2019s the loss of brilliant, unconventional thinkers who could push knowledge boundaries in ways we haven\u2019t yet imagined.<\/p>\n

Unexamined Neurodiversity Among Supervisors<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Perhaps one of the most overlooked barriers is that many supervisors are themselves neurodivergent but don\u2019t recognise it or acknowledge what\u2019s going on with them! In fact, since starting this research, I\u2019ve formed a private view that you almost can\u2019t succeed in this profession without at least a little neurospicey.<\/p>\n

Academia tends to attract deep thinkers with intense focus on specific topics \u2013 traits often associated with Autism (\u2018special interests\u2019 anyone?). The contemporary university is constantly in crisis, which some people with ADHD can find provides the stimulation they need to get things done! Yet many supervisors have succeeded through decades of masking and compensating, often at great personal cost.<\/p>\n

The problem is is not the neurodivergence or the supervisor \u2013 it\u2019s how the unexamined neurodivergence becomes embedded in practice, underpinned by an expectation that their students should function exactly as they do, complete with the same struggles they\u2019ve internalised as \u201cnormal.\u201d<\/p>\n

I want to hold on this idea for a moment, because maybe you recognise some of these supervisors:<\/p>\n