Why higher education needs a distinct neurodiversity practice
Neurodiversity in higher education is unusual because most institutions lead the country on student-facing neurodiversity practice — disability services, reasonable-adjustment plans, exam accommodations, assistive-technology provision — while quietly lagging on staff-facing practice. The result is a workforce experience that often trails the student experience by a decade, and academic, professional-services and research populations that navigate universities designed around neurotypical career norms of publication, teaching, grant capture and leadership progression.
Enterprise engagements with universities are usually sponsored jointly by the Vice-Chancellor's office, the Chief Operating Officer or Registrar, and the Director of People or HR. The work covers academic-leadership capability at Head of School, Dean and PVC level, professional-services manager capability, adjustment practice for teaching and research staff, and the alignment of staff and student neurodiversity practice under a coherent institutional narrative. It anchors to Office for Students, UKRI, Athena SWAN and Race Equality Charter expectations without being subordinated to any single framework.
For research-intensive institutions in particular, neurodiversity is a research-recruitment, research-retention and international-reputation issue. The best neurodivergent researchers have choices; universities that formalise neuroinclusive practice at PI, Head of School and Faculty Executive level win those choices. Wayne's higher-education work is scoped for that reality — including the governance layers of Council, Court and Senate that other sectors do not have — and delivers a workforce narrative aligned with the institution's public commitment to inclusive scholarship.