Mar 02, 2026
Governing Neurological Variation: A Systematic Mapping Review of the Neurodiversity and Work Field
- Anonymized for blind review1
- 1Independent Researcher
Protocol Citation: Anonymized for blind review 2026. Governing Neurological Variation: A Systematic Mapping Review of the Neurodiversity and Work Field. protocols.io https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.8epv55k7jv1b/v1
License: This is an open access protocol distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Protocol status: Other
We attempted this protocol but could not get it to work in our workspace
Created: March 01, 2026
Last Modified: March 02, 2026
Protocol Integer ID: 244229
Keywords: systematic mapping review of the neurodiversity, governing neurological variation, neurological variation, neurodiversity, geopolitical structure of the neurodiversity, adequate account of neurodivergent exclusion, neurodivergent exclusion, systematic mapping review, supplementary material alongside the manuscript, manuscript, total synthesis corpus, biorxiv
Disclaimer
This protocol documents the methodology of a systematic mapping review conducted and completed prior to its formal registration in a public repository. Registration was not completed prospectively because multi-database systematic mapping reviews of this design do not constitute a standard PROSPERO registration category. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) and PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021) throughout. This document is deposited retroactively to ensure full methodological transparency. The protocol accurately describes what was done; it is not a prospective plan. No amendments to methodology were made after data collection began.
Abstract
This document constitutes the retrospective protocol for a systematic mapping review of the neurodiversity and work field (2012–2026). The review addresses two research questions: (1) What is the theoretical and geopolitical structure of the neurodiversity and work field? and (2) What structural gaps does that configuration reveal about the conditions of knowledge production in the field?
Six databases were searched on 28 February 2026 (PubMed, OpenAlex, ERIH PLUS, ERIC, medRxiv, bioRxiv) with no start-date restriction, yielding 906 records. Following deduplication (n=440) and title/abstract screening via Abstrackr (κ=0.84, 10% subsample), 383 records were included in the primary corpus. Complementary multilingual searches in Russian (CyberLeninka) and Spanish (Google Scholar) identified 45 additional records, for a total synthesis corpus of 428.
The review employs a systematic mapping design (Grant & Booth, 2009; Gough et al., 2012) and reports in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) and PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021). Theoretical orientation was coded inductively across seven categories (κ=0.79, 15% subsample). The review was not prospectively registered; this protocol is deposited retroactively to ensure full methodological transparency and is submitted as supplementary material alongside the manuscript.
The review identifies a political-economic articulation gap as a structural property of the field: 52% of the corpus declares no theoretical framework, 3.7% (n=14) employs a critical political-economic framework, and 77% specifies no geographic context. The productive norm — the historically constituted complex of cognitive, temporal and sensory expectations embedded in labour market organisation — is proposed as the central analytic object for a structurally adequate account of neurodivergent exclusion from work.
Guidelines
The review employs a systematic mapping review design following Grant and Booth (2009) and adapted for social science contexts by Gough et al. (2012). Systematic mapping reviews map the structure of a research field — volume, growth, geographic distribution, methodological composition and theoretical orientation — to identify patterns, gaps and research directions. They do not synthesise effect sizes or conduct quality appraisal of individual studies. Reporting follows the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018) and PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021). A flow diagram is not included in the journal manuscript in accordance with Disability 26 Society accessibility guidelines; all PRISMA selection numbers are reported in prose.
Troubleshooting
Retrospective Note
This protocol documents the methodology of a systematic mapping review conducted and completed prior to its formal registration in a public repository. Registration was not completed prospectively because multi-database systematic mapping reviews of this design do not constitute a standard PROSPERO registration category. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) and PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021) throughout. This document is deposited retroactively to ensure full methodological transparency. The protocol accurately describes what was done; it is not a prospective plan. No amendments to methodology were made after data collection began.
Background and Rationale
The neurodiversity and work field has expanded at compound annual growth rates exceeding 40% since 2021, reflecting institutional incorporation into corporate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) agendas rather than organic scholarly development. Rollnick-Sadowska and Grabińska (2024) characterise the field as 'atheoretical' in a systematic review of neurodiversity in management literature. No prior systematic review had mapped the field's theoretical and geopolitical structure across multiple databases and linguistic traditions.
The field's institutional location within management and business schools has produced a corpus oriented toward accommodation practices, neurodiversity 'programme' evaluation, and human resource management (HRM) applications. Critical political economy, materialist disability theory, and crip theory are systematically underrepresented. This structural property — the political-economic articulation gap — constitutes the central contribution of the present review.
The review is anchored in two theoretical resources. First, Chapman's (2023) concept of the productive norm — the historically constituted complex of cognitive, temporal and sensory expectations embedded in labour market organisation that positions neurodivergent workers as deficient by design, not by nature. Second, Bourdieu's (1975) sociology of the scientific field as a space structured by unequal distribution of specific capital, which explains why certain research questions circulate within citation networks while others are systematically devalued.
The review does not adopt a medical or clinical framework. Neurodivergence is understood as neurological variation that becomes disabling through the operation of the productive norm in specific institutional and historical contexts (Oliver, 1990; Barnes and Mercer, 2003).
The review addresses two explicit research questions:
**RQ1: What is the theoretical and geopolitical structure of the neurodiversity and work field (2012–2026)?
**RQ2: What structural gaps does that configuration reveal, and what do those gaps indicate about the conditions of knowledge production in the field?
The political-economic articulation gap was identified inductively through open coding of theoretical orientation metadata in a post-hoc analytical phase. It was not a hypothesis guiding the search strategy.
Methods
The review employs a systematic mapping review design following Grant and Booth (2009) and adapted for social science contexts by Gough et al. (2012). Systematic mapping reviews map the structure of a research field — volume, growth, geographic distribution, methodological composition and theoretical orientation — to identify patterns, gaps and research directions. They do not synthesise effect sizes or conduct quality appraisal of individual studies.
Reporting follows the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018) and PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021). A flow diagram is not included in the journal manuscript in accordance with Disability 26 Society accessibility guidelines; all PRISMA selection numbers are reported in prose.
**Inclusion criteria A record was eligible for inclusion if it met all five of the following criteria:
**IC1. The study addresses the intersection of neurodivergence — including autism spectrum condition, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, Tourette syndrome, or broader neurodiversity — AND work, employment or labour market participation.
**IC2. The population includes adults aged 16 or over, or the study addresses transition from education to employment.
**IC3. The study is empirical (quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods), theoretical, conceptual, or a literature review (including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and mapping reviews).
**IC4. The publication is a peer-reviewed article, book chapter, preprint with sufficient methodological transparency, or grey literature produced by a recognised academic or policy institution.
**IC5. Full text is retrievable in English, Spanish, or Russian.
**Exclusion criteria A record was excluded if it met any of the following criteria:
**EC1. The study addresses neurodivergence exclusively in clinical or diagnostic contexts without reference to occupational, social or economic function.
**EC2. The population is exclusively children or adolescents with no reference to transition to adulthood or employment.
**EC3. The study addresses only assistive technology or medical intervention without reference to workplace or labour market outcomes.
**EC4. The record is a conference abstract, editorial, letter or book review without substantive empirical or theoretical content.
**EC5. Full text is not retrievable.
Six primary databases were searched with no start-date restriction:
| Database | Search period | Records (n) | Notes |
|-----------|---------------|-------------|-------|
| PubMed | 2025–2026 | 90 | Peer-reviewed biomedical and social science |
Complementary searches were conducted in Russian (CyberLeninka, 2022–2024; search terms: дискриминация Трудоустройством аутизм; n=60 retrieved, n=6 selected) and Spanish (Google Scholar, 2024–2026; search terms: neurodiversidad y trabajo; n=39 retrieved, n=39 selected). Complementary records do not enter the primary corpus bibliometric counts but are integrated analytically in the narrative synthesis with explicit attribution.
Search terms combined three conceptual domains across all six databases:
**Domain 1 — Neurodiversity/neurodivergence terminology: neurodiver*, autis*, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, Tourette, neurodivergent
**Domain 2 — Work and employment terminology: employ*, work*, labour market, labor market, workplace, job, vocation*, occupation*
**Domain 3 — Organisational terminology: organisation*, organization*, manage*, HRM, human resource*, inclusion, diversity, accommodation
Boolean operator: AND between domains; OR within domains. No start-date restriction. No language filter applied in primary search. Full search strings for all six databases are available from the corresponding author on request.
Title and abstract screening was conducted using Abstrackr (abstrackr.com), an online systematic review management platform. Primary screening was conducted by the lead author. A second reviewer independently screened a 10% random subsample (n=47 records); inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa (κ = 0.84), indicating strong agreement.
Records excluded at title and abstract stage were documented with reasons:
- Did not address the intersection of neurodivergence AND work/employment: n=41
- Exclusively clinical diagnosis without reference to occupational function: n=24
- Exclusively child population without transition component: n=12
- Conference abstract without substantive content: n=6
- Total excluded: n=83**
Records proceeding to inclusion: n=383 (primary corpus).
Data were charted by the lead author using a standardised extraction form developed a priori. A second reviewer independently charted a 15% random subsample for reliability assessment of theoretical orientation coding (κ = 0.79). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
**Variables extracted**
- Publication year
- Declared geographic context and country of study (missing coded as 'not specified')
- Journal title and disciplinary classification
- Methodological design — 5 categories: qualitative; quantitative; mixed methods; systematic/scoping review; theoretical/conceptual
- Theoretical and disciplinary orientation — 7 inductively coded categories: (1) diversity management/HRM paradigm; (2) neurodiversity paradigm; (3) individual psychological/cognitive framework; (4) identity/stigma/disclosure; (5) intersectionality/gender; (6) critical political economy; (7) critical disability studies
- Primary thematic focus
Synthesis
The analysis proceeded in two phases. Phase I comprised descriptive bibliometric mapping: frequency analysis and proportional distributions for annual publication counts, geographic concentration, methodological composition, theoretical orientation, and journal concentration. Phase II comprised five-cluster inductive narrative synthesis, refined through two rounds of iterative coding, followed by a cross-cutting analysis identifying the political-economic articulation gap as a structural property of the field. A Bourdieusian structural analysis of field constitution was conducted as a third analytical layer.
Researcher Positionality
The lead author is autistic. This positionality situates the review within the insider standpoint tradition in disability studies (Oliver, 1992; Barnes, 2003) and satisfies Disability 26 Society's requirement that research be linked to disabled people's interests. The political-economic articulation gap was identified inductively through systematic analysis of corpus metadata; it was not a prior ideological commitment. Experience of the phenomenon constitutes an epistemological resource, not a confound.
Anticipated Limitations
The following limitations were identified prior to data collection and are documented here for transparency:
**Anglophone concentration: The primary search databases are predominantly Anglophone. Complementary multilingual searches in Russian and Spanish partially address this but do not eliminate it.
**Single-reviewer charting: Data charting was conducted primarily by the lead author. Inter-rater reliability was assessed on a 15% subsample but full independent dual coding of all 383 records was not feasible.
**Title/abstract coding: Theoretical orientation was coded from titles and abstracts rather than full texts. This may underestimate the presence of critical frameworks in studies whose methodology sections engage more deeply with structural analysis than their abstracts suggest.
**Mapping design: The mapping design does not permit quality appraisal of individual studies or synthesis of effect sizes. Findings describe the structure of the field, not the effectiveness of any specific intervention.
**Complementary searches: The complementary multilingual literature (n=45) was identified through non-systematic manual searches. It is analytically illustrative, not exhaustive.
**No prospective registration: The review was not prospectively registered. This retrospective protocol documents what was done.
Protocol References
Barnes, C. (2003). What a difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing 'emancipatory' disability research. Disability 26 Society, 18_(1), 3–17.
Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14_(6), 19–47.
Chapman, R. (2023). Empire of normality: Neurodiversity and capitalism_. Pluto Press.
Chapman, R., 26 Carel, H. (2022). Neurodiversity, disability, wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13_, 868723.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., 26 Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews_. Sage.
Grant, M. J., 26 Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information 26 Libraries Journal, 26_(2), 91–108.
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement_. Macmillan.
Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production. Disability, Handicap 26 Society, 7_(2), 101–114.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372_, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Rollnick-Sadowska, E., 26 Grabińska, B. (2024). Neurodiversity at work: A systematic literature review. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37_(2), 401–422.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169_(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Appendix: PRISMA-ScR Compliance Statement
This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018) and PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021). All 22 PRISMA-ScR checklist items have been addressed in the manuscript, with items not applicable to a systematic mapping review explicitly noted and justified. A completed PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 full-report checklist (Elsman et al., 2024) is available as a separate supplementary document.
PRISMA selection numbers: 906 records identified → 440 duplicates removed → 466 screened → 83 excluded at title/abstract (41 no intersection with work; 24 exclusively clinical; 12 exclusively child population; 6 conference abstracts) → 383 included in primary corpus → complementary searches: 99 identified → 45 included → 428 total corpus for synthesis.**
Protocol references
Oliver, 1990; Barnes and Mercer, 2003; Chapman, 2023; Bourdieu, 1975; Rollnick-Sadowska and Grabińska, 2024; Grant and Booth, 2009; Gough et al., 2012; Tricco et al., 2018; Page et al., 2021.
Barnes, C. (2003). What a difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing 'emancipatory' disability research. Disability 26 Society, 18_(1), 3–17.
Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14_(6), 19–47.
Chapman, R. (2023). Empire of normality: Neurodiversity and capitalism_. Pluto Press.
Chapman, R., 26 Carel, H. (2022). Neurodiversity, disability, wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13_, 868723.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., 26 Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews_. Sage.
Grant, M. J., 26 Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information 26 Libraries Journal, 26_(2), 91–108.
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement_. Macmillan.
Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production. Disability, Handicap 26 Society, 7_(2), 101–114.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372_, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Rollnick-Sadowska, E., 26 Grabińska, B. (2024). Neurodiversity at work: A systematic literature review. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37_(2), 401–422.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169_(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Acknowledgements
2.2 Eligibility Criteria
**Inclusion criteria**
A record was eligible for inclusion if it met all five of the following criteria:
- IC1. The study addresses the intersection of neurodivergence — including autism spectrum condition, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, Tourette syndrome, or broader neurodiversity — AND work, employment or labour market participation.
- IC2. The population includes adults aged 16 or over, or the study addresses transition from education to employment.
- IC3. The study is empirical (quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods), theoretical, conceptual, or a literature review (including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and mapping reviews).
- IC4. The publication is a peer-reviewed article, book chapter, preprint with sufficient methodological transparency, or grey literature produced by a recognised academic or policy institution.
- IC5. Full text is retrievable in English, Spanish, or Russian.
**Exclusion criteria**
A record was excluded if it met any of the following criteria:
- EC1. The study addresses neurodivergence exclusively in clinical or diagnostic contexts without reference to occupational, social or economic function.
- EC2. The population is exclusively children or adolescents with no reference to transition to adulthood or employment.
- EC3. The study addresses only assistive technology or medical intervention without reference to workplace or labour market outcomes.
- EC4. The record is a conference abstract, editorial, letter or book review without substantive empirical or theoretical content.
- EC5. Full text is not retrievable.
2.3 Information Sources
Six primary databases were searched with no start-date restriction:
| Database | Search period | Records (n) | Notes |
|-----------|---------------|-------------|-------|
| PubMed | 2025–2026 | 90 | Peer-reviewed biomedical and social science |
| OpenAlex | 2009–2026 | 200 | Open academic graph; broadest disciplinary coverage |
| ERIH PLUS | 2007–2026 | 502 | European humanities and social sciences index |
| ERIC | 2020–2024 | 3 | Education research database |
| medRxiv | 2009–2026 | 70 | Health sciences preprints |
| bioRxiv | 2009–2026 | 41 | Life sciences preprints |
**TOTAL 906 Before deduplication
Complementary searches were conducted in Russian (CyberLeninka, 2022–2024; search terms: дискриминация Трудоустройством аутизм; n=60 retrieved, n=6 selected) and Spanish (Google Scholar, 2024–2026; search terms: neurodiversidad y trabajo; n=39 retrieved, n=39 selected). Complementary records do not enter the primary corpus bibliometric counts but are integrated analytically in the narrative synthesis with explicit attribution.
2.4 Search Strategy
Search terms combined three conceptual domains across all six databases:
- Domain 1 — Neurodiversity/neurodivergence terminology: neurodiver*, autis*, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, Tourette, neurodivergent
- Domain 2 — Work and employment terminology: employ*, work*, labour market, labor market, workplace, job, vocation*, occupation*
- Domain 3 — Organisational terminology: organisation*, organization*, manage*, HRM, human resource*, inclusion, diversity, accommodation
Boolean operator: AND between domains; OR within domains. No start-date restriction. No language filter applied in primary search. Full search strings for all six databases are available from the corresponding author on request.
2.5 Selection Process
Title and abstract screening was conducted using Abstrackr (abstrackr.com), an online systematic review management platform. Primary screening was conducted by the lead author. A second reviewer independently screened a 10% random subsample (n=47 records); inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa (κ = 0.84), indicating strong agreement.
Records excluded at title and abstract stage were documented with reasons:
- Did not address the intersection of neurodivergence AND work/employment: n=41
- Exclusively clinical diagnosis without reference to occupational function: n=24
- Exclusively child population without transition component: n=12
- Conference abstract without substantive content: n=6
- Total excluded: n=83**
Records proceeding to inclusion: n=383 (primary corpus).
2.6 Data Charting Process
Data were charted by the lead author using a standardised extraction form developed a priori. A second reviewer independently charted a 15% random subsample for reliability assessment of theoretical orientation coding (κ = 0.79). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
**Variables extracted**
- Publication year
- Declared geographic context and country of study (missing coded as 'not specified')
- Journal title and disciplinary classification
- Methodological design — 5 categories: qualitative; quantitative; mixed methods; systematic/scoping review; theoretical/conceptual
- Theoretical and disciplinary orientation — 7 inductively coded categories: (1) diversity management/HRM paradigm; (2) neurodiversity paradigm; (3) individual psychological/cognitive framework; (4) identity/stigma/disclosure; (5) intersectionality/gender; (6) critical political economy; (7) critical disability studies
- Primary thematic focus
2.7 Synthesis
The analysis proceeded in two phases. Phase I comprised descriptive bibliometric mapping: frequency analysis and proportional distributions for annual publication counts, geographic concentration, methodological composition, theoretical orientation, and journal concentration. Phase II comprised five-cluster inductive narrative synthesis, refined through two rounds of iterative coding, followed by a cross-cutting analysis identifying the political-economic articulation gap as a structural property of the field. A Bourdieusian structural analysis of field constitution was conducted as a third analytical layer.
2.8 Researcher Positionality
The lead author is autistic. This positionality situates the review within the insider standpoint tradition in disability studies (Oliver, 1992; Barnes, 2003) and satisfies Disability 26 Society's requirement that research be linked to disabled people's interests. The political-economic articulation gap was identified inductively through systematic analysis of corpus metadata; it was not a prior ideological commitment. Experience of the phenomenon constitutes an epistemological resource, not a confound.
3. Anticipated Limitations
The following limitations were identified prior to data collection and are documented here for transparency:
- Anglophone concentration: The primary search databases are predominantly Anglophone. Complementary multilingual searches in Russian and Spanish partially address this but do not eliminate it.
- Single-reviewer charting: Data charting was conducted primarily by the lead author. Inter-rater reliability was assessed on a 15% subsample but full independent dual coding of all 383 records was not feasible.
- Title/abstract coding: Theoretical orientation was coded from titles and abstracts rather than full texts. This may underestimate the presence of critical frameworks in studies whose methodology sections engage more deeply with structural analysis than their abstracts suggest.
- Mapping design: The mapping design does not permit quality appraisal of individual studies or synthesis of effect sizes. Findings describe the structure of the field, not the effectiveness of any specific intervention.
- Complementary searches: The complementary multilingual literature (n=45) was identified through non-systematic manual searches. It is analytically illustrative, not exhaustive.
- No prospective registration: The review was not prospectively registered. This retrospective protocol documents what was done.
Appendix: PRISMA-ScR Compliance Statement
This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018) and PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021). All 22 PRISMA-ScR checklist items have been addressed in the manuscript, with items not applicable to a systematic mapping review explicitly noted and justified. A completed PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 full-report checklist (Elsman et al., 2024) is available as a separate supplementary document.
PRISMA selection numbers: 906 records identified → 440 duplicates removed → 466 screened → 83 excluded at title/abstract (41 no intersection with work; 24 exclusively clinical; 12 exclusively child population; 6 conference abstracts) → 383 included in primary corpus → complementary searches: 99 identified → 45 included → 428 total corpus for synthesis.**
_End of Protocol Document_
_Version 1.0 · March 2026 · For OSF/Zenodo deposit and manuscript supplementary material_