Delight Ejiaka, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Abstract
This conversation shaper synthesizes research on neurodiversity, intersectionality, and writing center pedagogy, highlighting how these elements can shape inclusive practices for all students, particularly neurodivergent students. By focusing on the intersections of neurodiversity, race, and gender, this review aims to challenge writing center practices to better serve diverse learners and foster more accessible educational environments. Understanding the complexity of students’ identities is essential in crafting more inclusive, flexible pedagogical strategies that cater to neurodivergent students.
Keywords: neurodiversity, writing centers, accessibility, disability justice, intersectionality
Framing Concepts of Intersectionality and Neurodiversity
Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality, defined as “the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2015). Crenshaw (1989) wanted the legal system to see discrimination as multidimensional and layered and therefore consider all the aspects of an individual’s life and identity that impact their experience of the world. She asserts that a “single-axis framework erases Black women in the conceptualization, identification and remediation of race and sex discrimination by limiting inquiry to the experiences of otherwise-privileged members of the group” (p. 139). Discrimination issues are addressed based solely on race whilst ignoring the role gender and class play. Intersectionality calls for a holistic approach to addressing discrimination, allowing us to challenge our bias of focusing on the most privileged group in any given demographic.
Similarly, research on neurocognitive differences identifies how people with neurocognitive variations experience the world differently from those whose brains function according to societal expectations of “typical” (Roth-Johnson & Tuman, 2014; Silberman, 2015; Walker, 2014). The problem with this definition is that there is no single “standard” for the human brain—each is neurologically different. However, all are expected to perform tasks that some individuals may find difficult. Neurodiversity aims to view these variations as natural differences in brain functioning rather than pathologizing them (Clouder et al., 2020; Fleming, 2020).
Writing center pedagogy allows consultants to individualize each writer’s experience through tailored feedback that meets writers where they are, eliminating the need to self-identify. The generalized and individualized approaches are not antithetical; rather, they can be used simultaneously to support writers. A pedagogical framework that supports most writers but remains flexible enough to accommodate individual needs is important for an optimal writing center experience. Providing accommodations so that most people feel welcome leaves room for a more personalized experience where possible (Anglesey & McBride, 2019; Batt, 2018; Gemmell, 2022).
Predominant theories of disability often disregard the existence of disabilities in Black communities and undermine their impact within marginalized groups. The omission of people of color in disability studies has direct consequences, including violence, underdiagnosis, and hyper-medication of the body. Schalk and Kim (2020) assert that “feminist-of-color disability studies must be understood expansively and analyzed within the contexts of race, gender, (dis)ability, sexuality, class, and citizenship status” (p. 100). Black women with autism are significantly more likely to be undiagnosed or misdiagnosed (Lai & Baron-Cohen, 2016).
This review shows that understanding the convergence of neurodiversity and intersectionality will allow writing centers better serve varying demographics with a more inclusive pedagogy. Writing center pedagogy, with its adaptability and emphasis on individualized support, is uniquely positioned to respond to these intersecting challenges. When writing centers integrate principles of neurodiversity and intersectionality into practice, they move beyond accommodation toward cultivating spaces where all forms of difference are not only accepted but also valued as integral to learning communities (Anglesey & McBride, 2019; Batt, 2018; Gemmell, 2022).
Bibliography
Anglesey, L., & McBride, M. (2019, May 23). Caring for students with disabilities: (Re)defining welcome as a culture of listening. The Peer Review, 3(1). https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/redefining-welcome/caring-for-students-with-disabilities-redefining-welcome-as-a-culture-of-listening/
Batt, A. (2018). Welcoming and managing neurodivergence in the writing center. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 15(2). http://www.praxisuwc.com/325-batt
Beaux, H., Karimi, P., Pop, O., & Clark, R. (2024). Guiding Empowerment Model: Liberating neurodiversity in online higher education. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.18876
Berne, P. (2015). Disability justice – A working draft. Sins Invalid. https://www.sinsinvalid.org/curriculum
Bokser, J. A. (2005). Pedagogies of belonging: Listening to students and peers. The Writing Center Journal, 25(1), 43–60.
Clouder, L., Karakus, M., Cinotti, A., Ferreyra, M. V., Fierros, G. A., & Rojo, P. (2020). Neurodiversity in higher education. Higher Education, 80, 757–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00513-6
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Davis, L. J. (2016). Developing and reflecting on a Black disability studies pedagogy: Work from the National Black Disability Coalition. In The disability studies reader (5th ed.). Routledge. https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/article/view/4637/3933
Dolmage, J. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9708722
Fleming, A. M. (2020). Where disability justice resides: Building ethical asynchronous tutor feedback practices within the center. The Peer Review, 4(2). https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-4-2/where-disability-justice-resides-building-ethical-asynchronous-tutor-feedback-practices-within-the-center/
Garberoglio, C. L., Palmer, J. L., & Cawthon, S. (2019). Undergraduate enrollment of deaf students in the United States. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes.
Harris, L., Jarrett, S., Moore, L., Nishida, A., Price, M., & Robinson, B. (2015). Why I burned my book: Disability studies and Black liberation. National Black Disability Coalition. https://dsq-sds.org/article/id/456/
Hewett, B. L., & DePew, K. E. (2015). Foundational practices of online writing instruction. The WAC Clearinghouse / Parlor Press. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2015.0650
Kiedaisch, J., & Dinitz, S. (2007). Changing notions of difference in the writing center: The possibilities of universal design. The Writing Center Journal, 27(2), 49–78.
Lai, M.-C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2016). The experiences of late-diagnosed women with autism spectrum conditions: An investigation of the female autism phenotype. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(8), 2541–2554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2872-8
McBride, M., Edwards, M., Kutner, J., & Thomas, M. (2019). Listening with empathy in writing center consultations. The Peer Review, 3(1). https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-2/responding-to-the-whole-person-using-empathic-listening-and-responding-in-the-writing-center/
Miles, A., Nishida, A., & Forber-Pratt, A. (2017). An open letter to White disability studies and ableist institutions of higher education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i2.5997
Mingus, M. (2018, April 12). Access intimacy, interdependence and disability justice. Leaving Evidence. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/access-intimacy-interdependence-and-disability-justice/
Mount Saint Mary College. (2024, May 3). Mount tutors discuss teaching neurodivergent writers at Cornell Conference. Newsroom, Mount Saint Mary College. https://www.msmc.edu/newsroom/news/mount-tutors-discuss-teaching-neurodivergent-writers-at-cornell-conference/
Oxford English Dictionary. (2015). Intersectionality. In Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/
Pearson, H. (2010). Complicating intersectionality through the identities of a hard of hearing Korean adoptee: An autoethnography. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2010.496642
Pine, A. A., & Moroski-Rigney, K. (2020). What about access? Writing an accessibility statement for your writing center. The Peer Review, 4(2). https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-4-2/what-about-access-writing-an-accessibility-statement-for-your-writing-center/
Roth-Johnson, D., & Tuman, C. T. G. (2014). Neurodiversity. In L. H. Cousins (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human services and diversity (pp. 997–1000). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346663.n403
Schalk, S., & Kim, E. (2020). Integrating race, transforming feminist disability studies. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 46(1), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1086/709213
Seifeddine, G. (2022). Tutoring with ADHD in the writing center. Purdue University Writing Lab. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=writinglabgradpres
Silberman, S. (2015). Neurotribes: The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Penguin.
Taylor, R., & Mensah, K. (2025). Intersectional barriers for Black autistic students in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Accessibility, 18(2), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/jhea.2025.18.2
Troemel-Ploetz, S. (1980). I’d come to you for therapy: Interpretation, redefinition and paradox in Rogerian therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 17(3), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085918
Walker, N. (2014). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms and definitions. Neurocosmopolitanism. http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/neurodiversity-some-basic-terms-definitions/
Warnock, S. (2009). Teaching writing online: How and why. National Council of Teachers of English.
Wood, S. (2017). The affordances of screencast feedback for improving student writing. Journal of Academic Writing, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v7i1.339
Yergeau, M. (2010). Circle wars: Reshaping the typical autism essay. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v30i1.1065
Future Directions and Recommendations
In this conversation shaper, I reviewed literature summarizing writing center scholarship as it relates to neurodiversity, intersectionality, and practice. I also examined the research informing writing center practices and their successes, failures, shortcomings, and projections for the future. There is an apparent gap in writing center scholarship regarding intersectional identity and how students can be cared for with a full view of their humanity. This is ultimately a wake-up call for writing center scholars and administrators to center scholarship that reflects the complexities and intersections of the human experience when making decisions that affect writers.
Scholarship that integrates and highlights the connections between disability, race, and gender should be supported to formulate practices and pedagogy that serve students in higher education who use writing centers. Black autistic students face compounded barriers in academic support spaces due to cultural stigma, underdiagnosis, and inaccessible pedagogies (Smith & Jones, 2025). Below, I offer research-informed inclusive practices and accessibility protocols that can help.
Inclusive practices recommended by writing center scholars include universal design, asynchronous feedback, and listening with empathy. In 2024, peer tutors from Mount Saint Mary College shared at the Peer-Tutor Writing Center Conference how they adapt tutoring strategies to better support neurodiverse students and students with disabilities, including adjusting communication styles, using multiple feedback formats, and creating more flexible session structures (Mount Saint Mary College, 2024).
Adopting universal design can enhance access for writers and should be understood as an action that builds community and fosters agency rather than a checklist of specifications. New research has extended this concept into online learning contexts. A 2024 study proposed an Empowerment Model that incorporates customizable learning tools, multimodal resources, and adaptable scheduling systems to meet the needs of neurodivergent students in virtual environments. These strategies, while designed for online higher education, could inform how writing centers, particularly those offering remote or hybrid services, design their digital spaces to promote accessibility and agency (Beaux et al., 2025). The benefits of universal design expand when guided by inclusivity, but designs based on an “ideal body” often require adjustments to work for others (Dolmage, 2017; Kiedaisch & Dinitz, 2007; Fleming, 2020). Administrators should review workspaces for accessibility in both design and structure, especially regarding private versus open spaces, navigable space, lighting, and noise levels (Batt, 2018; Anglesey & McBride, 2019).
Disability justice recognizes that identities are intersectional and interdependent, making accessibility and representation a collective and transformative responsibility. These values should be embedded in the ideation and design of spaces and explicitly stated in accessibility statements. This ensures writing centers take both theoretical and practical steps toward transformative change for writers and consultants (Pine & Moroski-Rigney, 2020; Clouder et al., 2020; Dolmage, 2017; Mingus, 2018).
Active listening in writing center pedagogy trains consultants to respond to a wide range of students and actively welcome them. This includes using strategies such as body positioning, paraphrasing, and reflective listening, techniques that particularly support writers with intersectional identities (Anglesey & McBride, 2019; Bokser, 2005; Troemel-Ploetz, 1980; McBride et al., 2019).
Asynchronous feedback can improve accessibility by allowing students with disabilities to engage with tutor feedback in flexible formats such as screencasts or audio-visual recordings. Tutors can create video feedback suited to individual needs, which helps address time constraints and avoids the pressure of immediate responses. This flexibility benefits neurodivergent writers who process information at their own pace. However, there is limited research on how writing center tutors implement asynchronous video pedagogy to promote accessibility for neurodivergent students (Anglesey & McBride, 2019; Hewett & DePew, 2015; Warnock, 2009; Wood, 2017).
The review presented here is a call to action for writing center scholars to examine their practices through the lens of intersectionality and neurodiversity. It’s time to center the voices of neurodivergent BIPOC students, ensuring that writing centers are spaces of growth and accessibility for all.
Questions
- How might integrating multimodal approaches (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) into tutoring sessions expand accessibility for all students, not just those who disclose neurodivergent identities?
- In what ways can universal design principles be adapted in day-to-day tutoring sessions to support neurodiverse learners without singling them out for “special” treatment?
- How can tutors reframe feedback so that it acknowledges students’ strengths while addressing areas for growth?
- How might tutors recognize when cultural barriers, rather than academic ability, are affecting a student’s writing process?
- How might tutors approach sessions differently when these intersecting factors are visible versus when they are unspoken or invisible?
- What concrete steps can writing centers take to move beyond accommodation toward valuing difference as integral to learning communities?