In recent years, one of the joys of my work at the University has been to convene a regular tutorial / support group for neurodivergent students. As part of the process of unmasking and reflection, I’ve come to confront so much about my own past learning in University which was a (lonely and terrifying) struggle, from sensory overload, challenges processing and hearing lectures, processing information in different ways, and navigating frequent meltdowns and overload. Chatting with students (who have far more self-awareness at this stage in their University journey, but are still trying to navigate these challenges!) has been really meaningful. Our discussions have also been quite interesting from a research perspective, as we delve into points of pedagogical friction and dysfunction which are a regular part of their experience and to try and troubleshoot how we might adjust, confront, or repair those areas of exclusion where our curriculum doesn’t always map onto the diversity of our learners. We have found some things which are (or might be if we could find suitable allies around educational policy, which is sometimes a quest unto itself) easily fixed with small hacks, in other cases, it’s really just a matter of being able to speak aloud about challenges even when there’s nothing to be done. But then there are some issues where we identify a challenge which is much harder to pin down. It’s often the sort of thing where you might be tempted to dismiss it out of hand, but when 7 or 8 people all seem to have the same experiences, that cooroboration helps to identify something that requires further investigation.

I’ve been chasing one of these for a couple years now which runs something like this: some of our students experience really “spiky” performance in marks they receive for assessments. When I say spiky, I mean in the same semester they might get one of the highest marks we’ve ever awarded for a particular class, and at the same time they might be just above a failing mark in another. In some cases this happens because, when you’re navigating a learning environment which is constantly stressful and traumatic, energy levels can suddenly drop and executive function can evaporate. But even if we bracket out instances where this has been the case, there are other situations where learners submit a raft of essays, all composed with the same level of energy and deposited with the same level of confidence and the results are highly idiosyncratic and unexpected. This was very much the case for me as a learner: I managed to push my way through (obviously) higher education, but it was always by the skin of my teeth, fretting about that one module or essay that I’d nearly failed whilst getting superlative results in others. Let me emphasise, the phenomenon that I’m highlighting here isn’t a matter of ability suddenly flagging, or finding an area where I was lacking understanding or expertise. Sometimes I’d hand in an essay where I felt like I was saying something really important and meaningful, and the marker would return it with feedback indicating that they clearly didn’t understand what I was trying to do. This was (and is) usually framed as a failure to achieve proficiency in written communication. Because it’s always our fault when someone can’t understand us, right?

Since then I’ve learned about the double-empathy problem, originally developed by Damien Milton (original paper here). Researchers into autusim have consistently pursued this hypothetical frame – that breakdown in communication and understanding must lie within some pathology of the autistic person. This has been framed around “theory of mind” – the condescending, theoretically and empirically problematic suggestion that autistic people lack the ability to empathise or understand the mental states of other people, also sometimes called “mind blindness”. This much more comprehensive pathologisation of autistic lives can be confused with alexithymia (something I experience, as I relate here: A day in the life of neurodivergence) which is a much more specific condition, and which has been tied to both hyposensitivity (getting too little information from reading other people) and hypersensitivity (getting an overwhelming flood of information about the states of other people from microexpressions and body cues, which can be hard to parse when you’re under stress). It’s also the case that there is a very high co-incidence of trauma, at the levels of CPTSD for autistic people, which has effects (which can be addressed therapeautically) in impairing our ability to read other people (e.g. through the constant triggering of our threat perception and response). (some) Researchers have begun to be much more cautious about engaging with older theories around theory of mind, especially after they have begun to take into account trauma-informed approaches to experimental psychology. Getting back to Milton’s work, in setting aside the tendency to pathologise autistic people, Damien hypothesised that this lack of understanding, when it occurs, might happen to a much wider range of people. That breakdown in communication might arise from forms of cognitive difference, and seen in this way, might occur in BOTH directions. Milton wondered if it might be possible that autistic people might experience less communication breakdown when communicating with other autists and conversely if it might be possible to set up experiments which verified this was occurring. This research is just starting to coalesce as a field of study, but my reading of the literature (for an example, see Muskett et al 2009) is that this hypothesis has been confirmed and this requires substantial revision to psychological theories of autism.

The reason I bring up double-empathy is to ask, whether in the course of teaching and learning, we may have two-way breakdowns in communication, where written communication is the goal of the learning process. Is it possible that faculty (both autistic and allistic) are conveying prompts inviting students to write an essay which can be misunderstood when bridging neurological difference? And similarly, is it possible that students are writing essays which might be received quite differently, and even marked quite differently, when read by staff who are autistic or allistic? To be clear, as I’ve related elsewhere in blogposts, I think that the much heavier burden here is on allistic staff as autistic staff will have had a lifetime of training (sometimes on the level of conversion therapy) in interpreting and understanding communication across neurological difference. The especial challenge here is whether the opposite is true. I fear that in some cases it is not.

For now the advice that I give to students arises from my own experience: your learning process around written communication, especially where it will be largely evaluated by standards which exclude the salience of neurodivergence, will be spiky. You will be misunderstood, and there are few pathways to open up converastion with lecturers about this experience in practice unless you are willing to pathologise yourself (e.g. “I was under great stress and my writing suffered”). There are no mechanisms for faculty to assess their relative incompetence in understanding different forms of communication. And I see policy directions in higher education which are driven towards increasingly homogenous and binary assessments of written communication (good English v. bad English) which has implications for a wide variety of student and not just neurodivergent ones. I tell students that their learning journey is going to have a longer arc than they expect. I found that my own writing didn’t “click” with audiences consistently until I had time to synthesise the many many horizons I was trying to integrate (and this sense that one needs to integrate everything is a common experience for autistic learners). It wasn’t possible for me to compartmentalise in the ways that many other writers and learners do, which ensures a level of success in their early stages of education. It’s likely that I’ve also found an audience which has been developed over time, with readers who understand my broader project, have sympathy for and interest in it, and are able to “jump in” and understand what I’m trying to achieve.

The question I’m holding for right now is whether there are ways we can adjust our processes of teaching to adapt to a wider range of written communication styles, and celebrate the fact that learning journeys are often quite different. It’s possible that we cannot achieve this kind of adaptation without some radical reconfigurations. I’ve tried much of the fine-tuning approaches already in my own practice and with collegaues, and have not found much in the way of effects. I think that calls to abolish grades are probably a key part of the discussion we need to have around how we can more effectively configure the coaching relationship with student writers. The core issue here relates to neurodiversity on campuses – aside from box ticking and PR exercises, how far are we willing to go to craft pedagogy which embraces diversity and doesn’t punish it?