Centring Neurodivergent Academic Librarians' Experiences in Canada

Alison Pitcher, MLIS | MacEwan University

pitchera2@macewan.ca

Raising Awareness and Finding Themes

Research Assistant: Jess Zdril, MacEwan University LIT recent graduate, jesszdril@gmail.com

What we’re covering

1. Neurodivergent basics
• Common understanding of some key information that matters to the study and today’s session
2. The study itself
• Brief overview of the study goals, how it was run, and current stage
3. Preliminary findings from the study
• Preliminary findings from select survey responses, as well as a few highlights from interviews
4. Workplace changes to consider
• A few things that could change in academic library workplaces that can be done/started without requiring additional funding

Neurodivergent basics

Underlying definitions

• Neurodiversity
• The idea that there is a broad mix/range/variation in how brains function
• Neurodivergent/neurominority
• Someone whose mind functions, processes, thinks, works, etc. in a way that is, overall, outside of the ‘norm’
• Neuronormative/neurotypical
• Someone whose mind functions, overall, within what is considered the typical/norm
• Masking
• Suppressing, hiding, etc. behaviours, thought processes, etc. that are outside the norm in order to hide or fit into a pattern of behaviour that is considered to be more typical/socially acceptable. Often takes considerable energy.
• Pryke-Hobbes et al. (2023) have a good article that goes into the various context/reasons for masking and the costs
• Accommodation [in relation to neurodivergence]
• Alteration(s) made to an aspect(s) of work (i.e. a standing desk, requiring additional tasks to be written rather than verbal, being able to work from home, etc.) to allow employees with disabilities to better thrive/be successful at work
• The accommodation is an attempt to remove a discriminatory barrier
• Typically, there is a set process in place to attempt to access/acquire accommodations
• Legal requirement: duty to accommodate [disability is one of 13 prohibited grounds of discrimination] (Government of Canada, 2023)

Neurodivergent as a label

• While tied closely to disability, neurodivergent experiences/studies/activism can be separate
• Not all neurodivergent people consider themselves disabled
• Neurodivergent is just a label for existence
• One interview participant said, “I see neurodivergence as an operating system.”
• “Neurodivergence is not a gift or a curse, but a state of being. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, period. Removing someone’s impairment would give them a different set of attributes, not make them perfect or their lives hardship-free. However, their life would become easier, in many cases because they would fit into our ableist society better. ” (Tumlin, 2019, p.6)
• The medical model (commonly used to view neurodivergence and disability) views the disability as something bad to be fixed, pitied, or overcome
• Chapman (2020) had a chapter that speaks to medical and social models within neurodiversity and their issues
• “Neurodivergent” is a large umbrella term that encompasses many labels/identities
• What is included can be nebulous/vary
• Intersecting identities can/do impact

Rates of neurodivergence

• 15-20% of people are neurodivergent (Doyle, 2020)
• Rates are likely higher as many people don’t get a formal diagnosis
• van Rijswijk & Curșeu (2025) are an example: 12.1% of participants were formally diagnosed; another 26.7% of participants were self-identified
• Rates of individual neurodivergent labels are not equal
• Example estimates: ADHD - 5%, Autism - 1-1.6%, DCD/dyspraxia - 6%, Dyslexia - up to 10% (Doyle, 2020)

Self-identification

• In this community, self-diagnosis/self-identification is valid, as is formal/official diagnosis
• There can be many barriers to getting an official diagnosis
• People may purposefully choose to avoid an official diagnosis
• Newton et al. (2025) give a good overview of some of the common reasons self-diagnosis can be necessary
• Self-identification doesn’t typically happen on a whim
• Sevin (2025) explored social media impact on ADHD self-diagnosis in women over 30 and found that self-diagnosis was not done casually
• Neurodivergence exists, regardless of a label/diagnosis

Disclosure of identity

• Disclosure should be voluntary; some people choose not to disclose at all/in certain situations
• Price et al. (2017) found 71% of mentally disabled faculty disclosed to peers, staff members, or students, but only 29% disclosed to chairs, deans, provosts, HR, etc.)
• Only 38% of higher education faculty and staff reported being comfortable identifying as neurodivergent within their campus community (Accardo et al, 2025)
• 51.9% of academic library staff disclosed neurodivergence with a current or previous employer; 69.2% had considered doing so (Schirano, 2026)
• Stigma/discrimination can occur with all neurodivergent labels/identities
• Masking doesn’t necessarily stop stigma and bias
• Some neurodivergent labels are more recognized or understood (not always correctly, however) than others
• Bennett (2020) has a chapter on disclosing mental illness in the academic library workplace that delves into many of the nuances of this topic

​

​

In the library context

• Not well researched, but is very recently starting to see more attention
• Anecdotally, libraries seem to draw neurodivergent brains (Eng, 2017; Swick-Jemison, 2023)
• Libraries aren’t always safe workspaces
• Moeller (2025) interviewed neurodivergent librarians and 78% of them discussed the effort needed to navigate neuronormative workplaces (that effort can come at a cost, such as burnout); barriers included things like stereotyping and stigma, discrimination, unclear expectations, etc.
• Giles-Smith & Popowich (2023) surveyed autistic employees in Canadian academic libraries and 85% of respondents indicated that the library felt unsafe
• Burns & Green (2019) surveyed academic librarians on mental illness stigma and ~13% “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they had been discriminated against by employers because of their mental illness
• Oud (2018) surveyed academic librarians with disabilities and found 8% of librarians with disabilities faced discrimination and 13.5% experienced harassment.
• Schirano (2026) found that the most common risk/cost associated with neurodiversity disclosure for academic library staff had to do with interpersonal impacts within the workplace (bias, discrimination, prejudice, stigma); these risks/costs were a mixture of actual experiences and perceived risks.
• Calls for better understanding abound (examples: Burns & Green, 2019; Giles-Smith & Popowich, 2023; Moeller, 2025; Oud, 2018)

The study itself

Primary goals of the study

• Increase awareness of neurodivergent academic librarians in Canada
• Attempt to centre neurodivergent experiences
• Gain a better understanding of some of the workplace experiences that neurodivergent academic librarians can have
• Determine an approximate rate of neurodivergence and a sense of the variety in labels/identities

Study parameters

• Mixed methods, phenomenological study – focused on the experiences of neurodivergent academic librarians
• Survey
• Open to any academic librarian who:
• Worked in Canada at a primarily publicly funded institution
• Working as a librarian or equivalent (i.e. archivist, associate dean, etc.)
• Holding an MLIS/MI/equivalent
• Neurodivergent or neurotypical
• Official and self-diagnosis of neurodivergent welcomed
• Interviews
• Had to be neurodivergent/questioning participants of the survey

Neurodivergence – purposefully broad

• This study purposefully kept neurodivergence broad
• Official and self-diagnoses accepted
• van Rijswijk and Curșeu (2025) found that self-identification was a valid strategy for research purposes in organizational settings
• Anyone who was questioning a diagnosis was also included
• Identification journeys can be varied and take time; people question because they feel different
• Stagg & Belcher (2019) discuss ‘awareness of being different’ as part of identification journeys
• Survey introduced a simple yes/no/questioning neurodivergent question
• Followed by a separate question to add labels
• Space for adding own labels, as it was impossible to account for all possible labels

Design/methodology - survey

• Used the CAPAL Census (Fallis et al., 2026) as a base
• To allow for possible comparison if needed
• Questions were already tested/known
• Survey sent to librarians at institutions on Universities Canada member list and Colleges & Institutes Canada member list (institutions not found on or listed as private institutions on the Government of Canada master list of designated educational institutions were removed)
• Librarian emails were collected by going to library/institution websites
• Had to at least be a generic contact email for the library for the institution to be included
• In cases where no individual emails could be readily found, the head of the library or generic library email contact was used [request to share out among librarians]
• Survey also shared on a Canadian neurodivergent Discord group
• Survey conducted online via Qualtrics (anonymous link)
• Respondents had the option to pull data after submission

​

• Survey was a mixture of set choice/closed-ended and open-ended questions
• All but two questions were optional
• All participants answered the first branch of questions
• Questions included things like:
• Demographics (age, employment type, etc.)
• Autonomy and flexibility in role
• Awareness of neurodiversity
• Neurodivergent identity
• Neurodivergent/questioning respondents answered the second branch of questions (relating to neurodivergent experiences)
• Questions included things like:
• Neurodivergent labels
• Accommodations
• Openness about neurodivergence
• Work barriers
• Open-ended responses coded or categorized to allow for analysis

​

Design/methodology - interviews

• Questions designed to get at overall experience as an academic librarian, as well as how being neurodivergent came into/affected experience
• Centring neurodivergent voices
• Avoid “othering”
• Showcase variety in experiences
• Pulled some questions from the only similar work (Moeller, 2025) based on how useful the questions seemed to be at getting information and conversation from participants
• Interviewees volunteered as part of the survey; final interviewees were pulled from the volunteer list
• Synchronous interviews typically ran for 60-90 minutes
• Questions were provided prior to booking interview
• $50 compensation to interviewees

​

• Semi-structured interviews
• 8 broad, open-ended questions
• Example questions:
• Tell me about your perceptions of yourself as an academic librarian.
• In a world where neurodiversity is normalized and understood, would your work-life look any different? If it would, how so?
• Interviewees had choice between synchronous (online via Teams) or asynchronous (shared Word document) interviews
• Interview transcripts were cleaned for anonymization and clarity
• Interviewees had full editing capabilities on their final transcripts
• Coding of interviews: Reflexive Thematic Analysis
• Themes emerge from critical engagement with interviews

​

Study limitations

• While survey was open to neurotypical and neurodivergent respondents, self-selection likely occurred
• By casting neurodivergent parameters as wide as possible, some nuances will be missed
• Each person’s definition of neurodivergence can be slightly different (i.e. the survey included depression, but someone with depression might not consider themselves to be neurodivergent)
• Desire for anonymization and shareability [for broad reach] over exact sample group means response rate isn’t exact
• No central list of Canadian academic librarians means someone may not have received the survey invite
• Conducted in English only

​

​

Responses

• Survey
• Sent out to ~2000 people
• 1938 individuals
• 36 single-contacts for institutions [typically smaller institutions]
• 169 institutions in total
• 408 usable responses [~20% response rate]
• Interviews
• 87 volunteers
• 26 interviews
• Meaning saturation for coded interviews is usually reached between 16 and 25 interviews (Hennink et al., 2017; Hennink & Kaiser, 2022)

​

Stage in the study now

• Survey complete
• Interviews complete
• Survey data cleaned, initially coded, and analysis ongoing
• Interview transcripts cleaned, 24/26 approved, and in initial coding stages

Preliminary survey results

Neurodivergent respondents

Combining yes and unsure/ questioning:

• No - 47%
• Yes and Unsure/ questioning - 53%

Moving forward:

• Yes and unsure/questioning have been combined and labelled as ‘neurodivergent’
• No is labelled as ‘neurotypical’

Top neurodivergent labels/identities

715 indications of labels being identifying to some degree to respondents over 41 labels

In addition to the labels shown (89% of all label instances), there were also:

• 19 that had only 1 respondent
• Another 12 had between 2-10 respondents

Of those 715 indications:

• 48% - official diagnosis
• 24% - self-diagnosis
• 27% - questioning/considering but still unsure

Of the 215 respondents, 165 (77%) had an official diagnosis in at least one label

Labels per neurodivergent respondent

Of the 215 neurodivergent respondents:

• 14% have a single label
• 86% have 2+ labels

Openness about neurodivergence

Up to 70% of neurodivergent academic librarians might not be openly neurodivergent

• They may not ask for accommodations/ changes related to neurodivergence at all
• Or they may only ask for changes in a way that doesn’t self-identify themselves

Disclosure is more likely to come from feeling safe and connected to colleagues/workplace, than occur to receive an official accommodation (Schirano, 2026)

​

Neurodivergent awareness vs librarian years

• Up to 67% of librarians discover their neurodivergence while working
• Up to 60% discover their neurodivergence while working as academic librarians

Impact of being neurodivergent

Yes & Other

[& Blank]

Accommodations

• 49% of respondents don’t want/need accommodations
• Sometimes accommodations are purposefully avoided for fear of negative consequences (Giles-Smith & Popowich, 2023)
• 25% don’t currently have accommodations but want/need some
• 26% have some kind of accommodation
• Only 7% have any kind of official accommodation
• Accommodation processes can be difficult (Giles-Smith & Popowich, 2023)

Disability

• Neurodivergence needs to be a separate question from disability to properly capture neurodivergent existence/ experiences

Precarious employment

• Neurodivergence does have an impact on job precarity
• P<.001 [even if tenure track moves to stable]
• Stable:
• Continuing
• Permanent
• Tenured
• Precarious:
• Contract (nonrenewable)
• Contract (renewable)
• Probationary
• Tenure track

​

Top work barriers

Examples:

• Focus/energy fatigue: working 9-5 without being able to take short breaks or leave the office
• Communication – social drain: underlying expectation to converse with colleagues during breaks
• Time management: expectation that all employees will complete assignments within the same time frame, without considering different work styles or needs
• Inflexibility: being unable to work from home or with atypical hours (not 9-5)
• Behavioural/workplace expectations: needing to navigate corporate hierarchies or being confined to unnecessary expectations, such as university classes should be taught in a "conventional" way
• Communication – misunderstanding: misinterpreting social cues during a work event
• Overstimulation: sensory overload or needing to constantly balance multiple never-ending tasks (emails, planning, scheduling, etc.) without supports or breaks
• Task overload: being expected to juggle multiple projects at once
• Unclear expectations: expecting a new hire to complete a project with only a vague outline of what needs to be done
• Maintaining relationships/status quo: being unable to speak one's mind freely to "keep the peace"

​

Intersecting identities impacting experience

85 ‘Yes’ listed identities

Examples

• 2SLGBTQIA+
• Queer
• Transgender
• BIPOC
• Person of colour
• Indigenous
• Life Experiences
• Fat
• Late diagnosed
• Gender Identities/Impacts
• Woman/Female
• Man/Male
• Cultural Experiences/Background
• Immigrant
• Linguistic minority
• Disabilities and Related Experiences
• Invisible disability
• Family with disability

Three preliminary highlights emerging from interviews

Working in a static 9-5, capitalist, production-driven environment doesn’t work well

• Numerous people talked about:
• Energy cycles (i.e. periods of very high energy/high accomplishment followed by periods of very low energy/low accomplishment)
• Needing to recharge after a hard/draining thing
• Needing exercise, meditation, etc. during day
• Having non-standard peak energy times
• Needing longer to produce things OR longer to explore a topic properly
• NOTE that this often leads to better overview of connections
• Mixture of people struggling to work within those structures, and people who had ‘figured it out’ and had systems/boundaries/self-accommodations/etc.

We need to consider the individual “whole person”

• Numerous interviewees pointed out that not everyone’s experiences were the same
• Intersectionalities came up multiple times
• And that those intersecting identities impacted overall experiences as neurodivergent academic librarians
• Numerous people spoke to the idea that even if someone appears to be succeeding or thriving at work, there may be a cost outside of work, or they may struggle outside of work in general

Awareness and acceptance can be better

• There is still a lot of stigma and ableism faced
• Being openly neurodivergent at work can be met with hostility or negative experiences
• There are numerous labels that aren’t understood
• A lot of educating is then required of the person with the label
• Incorrect assumptions about what the label means are made
• Even for those who are openly neurodivergent and better understood, there are aspects that they still hide or mask (reasons range from wanting to stay professional, to fear of not being understood, to fear of stigma/bias, etc.)
• Self-discovery and awareness take time too: organizations/associations/individuals could be better at sharing (and/or creating) community spaces and information/tools for neurodivergent academic librarians

Changes to academic library workplaces

While not everyone needs/wants change, reducing barriers would be useful for others

Capture unwritten/hidden expectations

• Make unwritten/hidden/assumed things explicit
• Try to pin down what is unwritten in your library
• Give details or examples for things that are more nebulous
• Don’t expect things that are just ‘word of mouth’ to reach everyone
• Examples:
• Make it clear what the library’s minimum socialization expectations of employees is [if you’re not sure, take a poll of all your employees]
• Are there certain service opportunities that your library values more than others? If so, create a ranked list and share it
• Does your library read certain emotions into someone having their door closed most of the time? If so, try to address bias [best option] or create guidelines for the minimum number of hours doors should be open

​

Allow flexibility for those who want it (without needing reasons)

• Allow for flexibility in all aspects of work (or as much flexibility as possible)
• Normalize the need for flexibility
• Don’t stigmatize people who need flexibility
• Find ways to make flexibility a more secure feature (even without an official accommodation)
• Examples:
• Later start time
• Ability to WFH several days a week
• Permission to shuffle work around to accommodate lower energy periods
• Adjustments to physical workspace (lighting, office space where door can be closed, noise-cancelling headphones, etc.)
• Job share among people with opposite interests/skills (i.e. have a detail-oriented logistics person job share/co-work with a big-picture strategic planning person)
• Give people parameters for when their flexibility might disappear versus when it will be preserved

​

Increase awareness of different communication styles/needs

• Have people think about ways that they could alter their own communication style/needs to meet people closer to their own style/needs (when it is known)
• Break down assumptions/biases that can come with communication with people who have different communication styles/needs
• Examples:
• Raise awareness that someone who doesn’t involve themselves in chatting before a meeting doesn’t mean they don’t like people
• Try not to set the expectation that only those with a direct communication style need to change/alter their style
• Have people work through examples and the underlying thinking processes of various communication styles/needs
• Have people dismantle their own bias/unconscious bias surrounding communication styles/needs (i.e. that someone who takes longer to speak their idea/opinion isn’t saying something of value)

Expand recognition of value/work beyond concrete products/outputs

• Allow for recognition of more nebulous/emotional labour work
• Allow for people to explain why/how something they’ve done merits recognition in a performance/evaluation category
• Even if it doesn’t appear to be an immediate match
• Examples:
• Recognize that small changes someone does to try to make neurodivergent students more comfortable in the library might be just as valuable as increasing the number of student consults by X%
• Allow for people to make connections that show value even outside of an annual reporting period (i.e. “I spent longer than anticipated exploring X last year, but that exploration meant that this year, in project Z, I had a better idea of how to do A and B”)

​

​

References and further reading

tinyurl.com/CAPAL26ref

​

• Accardo, A. L., Bomgardner, E. M., Rubinstein, M. B., & Woodruff, J. (2025). Valuing neurodiversity on campus: Perspectives and priorities of neurodivergent students, faculty, and professional staff. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 18(Suppl 1), S306–S320. doi: 10.1037/dhe0000571
• Alexas_Fotos. 2018. Lightbulb, plant, stones image. https://pixabay.com/photos/lightbulb-plant-stones-arrangement-3279742/ [title slide picture]
• Bennett, A. (2020). Full disclosure? Issues around disclosing mental illness in an academic library workplace. In C. Wade & M. Dub (Eds.), LIS interrupted: Intersections of mental illness and library work (pp. 87-104). Litwin Books.
• Burns, E., & Green, K. (2019). Academic librarians’ experiences and perceptions on mental illness stigma and the workplace. College & Research Libraries, 80(5), 638–657. doi: 10.5860/crl.80.5.638
• Chapman, R. (2020). Neurodiversity, disability, wellbeing. In H. Rosqvist, N. Chown, & A. Stenning (Eds.), Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm. Taylor & Francis.
• Doyle N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135:108-125. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldaa021
• Eng, A. (2017). Neurodiversity in the library: One librarian’s experience. In The Library With The Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2017/neurodiversity-in-the-library/
• Fallis, J., Lui, T., Zhu C. Y., Pinard, M. (2026). 2025 Census of Canadian Academic Librarians User Guide and Results Summary. CAPAL. https://capalibrarians.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/2025-Census-of-Canadian-Academic-Librarians-Results-Summary.pdf

• Giles-Smith, L., & Popowich, E. (2023). Autistic employees in Canadian academic libraries: Barriers, opportunities, and ways forward. The Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship, 9, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.33137/cjal-rcbu.v9.39994
• Government of Canada. (2023). Duty to accommodate: A general process for managers. https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/wellness-inclusion-diversity-public-service/diversity-inclusion-public-service/working-government-canada-duty-accommodate-right-non-discrimination/duty-accommodate-general-process-managers.html
• Hennink, M., Kaiser, B.N., & Marconi, V.C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591-608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
• Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292. Article 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523
• Moeller, C. M. (2025). “Begging to be heard”: The professional exclusion and marginalization of neurodivergent librarians (Publication No. 31847128) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
• Newton A, Flinn A, Downs J and Richmond L (2025). Rethinking self-identification in neurodivergent communities: Barriers, harms, and the need for change. Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 4:1682129. doi: 10.3389/frcha.2025.1682129
• Oud, J. (2018). Academic librarians with disabilities: Job perceptions and factors influencing positive workplace experiences. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 13(1), 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v13i1.4090

tinyurl.com/CAPAL26ref

​

References and further reading

• Price, M., Salzer, M., O'Shea, A., & Kerschbaum, S. (2017). Disclosure of mental disability by college and university faculty: The negotiation of accommodations, supports, and barriers. Disability Studies Quarterly 37(2) doi: 10.18061/dsq.v37i2.5487
• Pryke-Hobbes, A., Davies, J., Heasman, B., Livesey, A., Walker, A., Pellicano, E., & Remington, A. (2023). The workplace masking experiences of autistic, non-autistic neurodivergent and neurotypical adults in the UK. PloS One, 18(9), Article e0290001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290001
• Schirano, M. (2026). Neurodiversity disclosure among academic library staff [Doctoral dissertation, Fairfield University]. DigitalCommons@Fairfield. https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/etds/25
• Sevin, R. L. (2025). Diagnosis by algorithm: The transformative impact of social media–driven ADHD self-diagnosis for women over 30 and the proposal of neurotype strain theory (Publication No. 32044913) [Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
• Stagg, S. D., & Belcher, H. (2019). Living with autism without knowing: Receiving a diagnosis in later life. Health Psychology & Behavioral Medicine, 7(1), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2019.1684920
• Swick-Jemison, J. (2023). ADHD and the early career teaching librarian: An autoethnography. Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship, 9, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.33137/cjal-rcbu.v9.40953
• Tumlin, Z. (2019). “This is a quiet library, except when it’s not:” On the lack of neurodiversity awareness in librarianship. Music Reference Services Quarterly, 22(1–2), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10588167.2019.1575017
• van Rijswijk, J., & Curșeu, P. L. (2025). Formal versus self-identified neurodivergence: A comparative study in work environments. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 420. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040420

​

​

tinyurl.com/CAPAL26ref

​

References and further reading

Questions?

Alison Pitcher: pitchera2@macewan.ca