There has been a notable change in how third-level institutions perceive and interact with students who do not meet historically typical expectations regarding education. This is evidenced by an increased emphasis on equality, diversity, and inclusion in terms of access and retention across the sector. The extent to which this includes a neurodiversity focus varies significantly across jurisdictions. However, research suggests a gap between rhetoric and reality concerning neurodiversity at the third level, with many students’ lived experiences being reported as challenging, and at times compounding stigma, masking, and feelings of inadequacy. Moreover, it is unclear whether third-level institutions understand the nuance of neurodiversity and the significance of the neurodiversity movement. This project utilised the Global Café methodology to explore the above phenomenon from a participatory lived experience perspective. The project found that, despite the increase in focus by third-level institutions in the area of neurodiversity, this cohort is still disadvantaged when compared to their neurotypical peers and indeed may be experiencing greater exclusion as a result of the overemphasis upon what is perceived to be a singular and neurotypical understanding of the strength-based model within the third-level sector. Lay abstract This study looks at how colleges and universities treat students who learn differently. Even though colleges and universities talk a lot about being fair and inclusive, the research shows that many students who think and learn differently still face a lot of difficulties. This study explored this using a method called the Global Café. The Global Café method gathers information with students about their own experiences, allowing the students to direct the research. The findings reveal that, despite colleges and universities saying they support students who learn differently, many students still face challenges compared to those who learn in more traditional ways. The study highlighted that terms used in the area of neurodiversity were open to question/debate with different terms being preferred by different people in different contexts. It also found that many supports and initiatives are steeped in neurotypical (typical learning approaches) assumptions and therefore do not always apply to the needs of students who think and learn differently. Finally, the study found that more needs to be done to make sure students with different learning styles have the same opportunities in higher education, not just when they are entering it.
