Original Research Article

Neurodiversity

‘I hate calling it a disability’: Exploring how Volume 3: 1–15

© The Author(s) 2025
Article reuse guidelines:
labels impact adults with dyslexia through [Link]/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/27546330241308540
an intersectional lens [Link]/home/ndy

Shae Wissell1 , Judith Hudson2, Rebecca L Flower3 and William Goh4

Abstract

Background
Limited research exists on the intricate relationship between dyslexia diagnoses and the impact of associated labels on
adults. Dyslexia, affecting one in 10 adults, forming one of the largest neurodivergent groups, involves a diagnostic label
that communicates difficulties but can also perpetuate stigma. This multifaceted condition includes biological, psychological,
and social factors, with diverse terms used globally shaping societal perceptions.
Methods
This qualitative study, part of broader Australian research on dyslexic adults in employment, aims to explore preferences and
perspectives on dyslexia-related labels. Involving 14 dyslexic individuals and 4 employers/managers, the study uses semi-
structured interviews, employing discourse content analysis and interpretative repertoires methodology within an
Intersectionality Framework. Four repertoires emerge, addressing Dyslexia the Label, Disability Label Paradigm, Dyslexia
Is Not a Superpower, and The Impact of Labels on Sense of Self. Participants preferred ‘dyslexia’ over broader labels
like ‘disability’, rejecting the superpower notion, while employers see dyslexia positively within work environments.
Conclusion
This study highlights the need for targeted support, advocating for strength-based labels to enhance self-perception and
workplace environments, while addressing ableism. It calls for the dismantling of discriminatory practices in education,
employment, and society for dyslexics. The research’s novelty lies in its focus on adult dyslexic experiences within
Australian workplaces.

Keywords

dyslexia, labels, adults, Australia, employment, intersectionality and neurodiversity

Submission date: 21 January 2024; Acceptance date: 2 December 2024

Background
1
School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora,
Medical diagnoses often involve the use of labels to categorise Australia
and communicate specific conditions or illnesses affecting 2
School of Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
3
patients. The medical categorisation of neurodevelopmental School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo,
conditions, such as dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Australia
4
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide,
Disorder (ADHD), and autism, and the application of these
Australia
classification labels across varying contexts has shown a
Corresponding author:
marked rise on a global scale, notable within the adult popu- Shae Wissell, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University,
lation (Attoe & Climie, 2023; Werkhoven et al., 2022; Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Wissell et al., 2021). These labels serve several purposes, Email: [Link]@[Link]

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
4.0 License ([Link] which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work
without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ([Link]
open-access-at-sage).
2 NEURODIVERSITY

such as providing a standardised way for healthcare profes- element of the condition (e.g., reading speed) but not the
sionals to communicate a patient’s condition, guide appropri- dynamic interplay of other factors, such as those within psy-
ate treatment, and collect and analyse health data (Huda, chological and social aspects (e.g., impacts from
2019). For individuals and their families, diagnostic labels co-occurring conditions such as ADHD and other conditions
may also offer a sense of understanding and validation, pro- (Willcutt & Pennington, 2000)); reading speed under duress
viding insight into their experiences and conditions (as seen in public settings (social phobia) (Eissa, 2010). This limita-
among late-diagnosed autistic people; e.g., Wilson et al., tion can affect how a diagnosis is understood, the type of
2023). However, there are disadvantages to having a medica- interventions recommended, and an individual’s identity,
lised label. For example, some labels may carry societal with the potential for life-altering outcomes (Snowling
stigmas or misconceptions, leading to negative perceptions et al., 2020). Concerningly, the impact of commonly used
and discrimination (as seen among students with ADHD, labels on dyslexic adults in the context of adopting affirm-
Metzger & Hamilton, 2021). For conditions such as dyslexia ation approaches to disability (e.g., the Affirmation Model,
that are impacted by biological, psychological, and social Swain & French, 2000) is unclear and under-researched.
factors, the use of labels may be more complex. Societal
understanding of dyslexia has historically been complicated
(Snowling et al., 2020). A label may recognise or highlight Dyslexia
one element of the condition but not the psychological or Dyslexia is classified as a neurobiological learning disabil-
social aspects. This can impact the way a diagnosis is under- ity that causes significant difficulties in learning how to
stood, the type of interventions recommended, and an indivi- decode and read words, irrespective of the level of educa-
dual’s feelings about themselves. tional attainment or the quality of teaching received
Often overlooked in discourse is how these labels shape during formal education (Grigorenko et al., 2020; Lyon
a person’s self-identity, perceptions of others, and et al., 2003; Yang et al., 2022). The amassed corpus of evi-
responses within the community (Alexander-Passe, dence about dyslexia has shown it is not a disorder with
2015b; Brzykcy & Boehm, 2022; Gibson, 2019; Granello clear-cut boundaries or a single cause. Dyslexia primarily
& Gibbs, 2016; Taylor et al., 2010; Wissell et al., 2022). affects literacy skill development but can also impact pro-
Nevertheless, diagnostic labels can offer some understand- cessing speed, automaticity, and facets of working
ing and validation that can provide insight into experiences memory (Snowling, 2013). While several theories explain
and conditions, as seen among late-diagnosed autistic indivi- the etiology and manifestation of dyslexia, no universal
duals and their families reported elsewhere (Werkhoven et al., consensus has been reached (Al-Yagon et al., 2013;
2022; Wilson et al., 2023). However, there are disadvantages Snowling et al., 2020; Vender, 2017).
to having a diagnostic label since it can also lead to social Dyslexia and its associated challenges are typically
bias. Some labels carry societal stigmas and misconceptions, understood within the medical model of health, prevailing
leading to inappropriate perceptions and discrimination, as since the 18th-century through the use of diagnostic
seen among students with ADHD (Metzger & Hamilton, labels (Huda, 2019). The medical model assesses health
2021). Similarly, autistic adults report significant, detrimental based on the presence or absence of disease and equates
effects from comparative stigmas and stereotypes throughout good health with the absence of disease. Within the
their lives (Botha et al., 2022). In contrast, recent decades Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
have seen a social movement departing from exclusionary 5th edition (DSM-5), dyslexia is categorised under the
language and stigma to depict neurodiversity positively umbrella term ‘specific learning disorder with a reading
(Swain & French, 2000), as shown by the development of deficit’ (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; Frolov
the Affirmation Model. Some even adopt the term ‘super- & Schaepper, 2013). Other terms used within the medical
powers’ to describe neurodivergent individuals, referencing model have included specific reading disability, specific
their intellectual, creative or other attributes or gifts reading disorder, specific learning impairment, learning dis-
([Link], 2024; Spencer, 2018; West, 2020) that ability, and specific learning disorder/difficulty (American
are discussed later. Psychiatric Association, 2022; Bond, 2021; Lyon et al.,
For conditions such as dyslexia which are impacted by 2003). While the diagnostic manual aims to standardise ter-
synergies between variable biological, psychological, and minology and diagnoses, there remain inconsistencies in
social factors, the use and consequences of applying some- how the terminology is applied.
times conflicting labels can become complex (Gibbs & There is worldwide variation in the terms used to
Elliott, 2020). As such, how dyslexics perceive their spe- describe the diagnosis of dyslexia, such as specific learning
cific neurodivergence and themselves, in contrast to societal disability, specific learning impairment and learning diffi-
views, is environmentally influenced, evolving, dynamic, culty, and the debate continues (Gibbs & Elliott, 2020;
and sometimes controversial. Societal understanding of Kirby, 2020; Kranz et al., 2024; Snowling, 2019;
dyslexia has historically been complicated (Snowling Snowling et al., 2020). Snowling (2019) found the term
et al., 2020). A label may recognise or highlight one ‘specific learning difficulties’ in the United Kingdom
Wissell et al. 3

(UK), while ‘learning disabilities’ is used in the United of masking their dyslexic difficulties to appear ‘normal’
States. Research undertaken by Al-Yagon et al. (2013) (Alexander-Passe, 2018; Deacon et al., 2022).
identified that the label ‘Lernbehinderung’ in German was The affirmation model promotes positive social iden-
used to explain the term ‘learning disability’, including tities for disabled individuals by emphasising a positive
those with mild intellectual disabilities. Snowling (2019) outlook on impairment and disability (Cameron, 2023;
undertook a Google search for the term ‘dyslexia’ and Swain & French, 2000) and links well with the neurodiver-
obtained 11 million hits, while the term ‘specific learning sity paradigm and movement, aligning with the social
difficulties’ had only half as many. model of disability. The neurodiversity paradigm argues
In Australia, the term ‘specific learning disability’ com- for the inclusion and acceptance of people whose brains
monly includes a wide range of learning difficulties, one of work differently from those considered ‘typical’ (Singer,
which is dyslexia (Kranz et al., 2024). This term is found 2016). Neurodivergence is a non-medical umbrella term
in the health, tertiary education and employment sectors, as offering a positive statement of difference, rejecting the
well as in the Australian Disability Discrimination Act belief that variations are dysfunctional (Ortiz, 2020; Reid,
1992 (Al-Yagon et al., 2013; Commonwealth of Australia, 2016). The neurodiversity paradigm, primarily driven by
1992). Alternatively, in primary and secondary education, a the autism literature (den Houting, 2019; Ortiz, 2020;
different term is used. ‘Learning difficulties’ is often the pre- Singer, 2016), includes dyslexia but has not yet become
ferred term for students with literacy and numeracy chal- the dominant view. Although dyslexia is currently the
lenges. Furthermore, different terms are used across largest neurodivergent population with 10%, compared to
Australian states and territories and between educational set- 5% with ADHD and 1–2% with autism (Governement,
tings such as private, Catholic and public schools (Al-Yagon 2024; Moll et al., 2014; Senate, 2023; Wissell, 2023).
et al., 2013; Serry & Hammond, 2015). The inconsistency in This paradigm acknowledges and examines the strengths
language used to speak about dyslexia creates challenges as of neurodivergent individuals without disregarding their
dyslexia is not limited to a learning disability but also difficulties (Singer, 2016).
includes other elements. This can complicate the ongoing The neurodiversity paradigm is somewhat grounded in
debate by stakeholders about how best to support those the concepts of giftedness and twice-exceptionality, espe-
with dyslexia and how to move the discussion beyond cially within the autism community (Hughes-Lynch,
reading difficulties (Gibbs & Elliott, 2020; Kranz et al., 2022; Madaus et al., 2022; Madaus et al., 2022). Sections
2024). of society have pushed to recognise the exceptional
talents of autistic individuals, especially in fields like
STEM, to expand opportunities in education and employ-
Dyslexia: Disability or not? ment (Murthi et al., 2024; Urbanowicz et al., 2019).
The varied theories and conceptualisations of dyslexia have These ideologies are mirrored within some parts of the dys-
spawned complex debates on self-recognition and recognition lexic community, with local and international research
by others (Collinson, 2020; Gibbs & Elliott, 2020). This exploring the link between individuals with dyslexia and
relates to the use of the term ‘disability’. Classifying dyslexia twice-exceptional cognitive or creative abilities (Gilger
as a disability has its benefits, offering protections under et al., 2013; Kranz et al., 2024; West, 2020). Although a
various acts and legislation (e.g., in Australia: Rights of small percentage, research undertaken by Kranz et al.
Persons with Disability Convention (ROPD); Australian (2024) found there was a higher prevalence of children
Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Fair Work Act 2010, who were both dyslexic and gifted/twice exceptional com-
The Equal Opportunity Act 2010), enabling individuals to pared to the general population (Kranz et al., 2024).
access educational and workplace adjustments. Despite these Within social contexts some go further, using labels like
protections, labelling dyslexia as a disability is not universally ‘superpowers’ and ‘dyslexic thinking’ to describe dyslexic
accepted (Alexander-Passe, 2018; Macdonald, 2010). strengths, which can align with the affirmation model but
The social model of disability emerged as a counterpoint are not measurably delineated as gifted/twice exceptional
to the medical model perspective. The social model posits traits (Addison & Cooke, 2019; Dyslexia, 2024; Eide &
that ‘people with impairments are disabled or excluded by Eide, 2011; Kranz et al., 2024; Spencer, 2018). Authors
a society that is not structured to accommodate their like Eide and Eide (2011) argue in ‘The Dyslexic
needs’ (Tregaskis, 2002, p. 458). As such, disabilities pri- Advantage’ that about 20% of dyslexic individuals
marily result from societal physical and social barriers possess a unique learning difference that offers advantages
that restrict or deny equal opportunities for individuals to in various areas of life (Eide & Eide, 2011). An article by
engage on par with others (Glazzard & Dale, 2015). Ross (2018) stated that ‘dyslexics have a heightened level
Some people with dyslexia feel they are not disabled in of empathy and heightened level of ability for visual or
the traditional sense; rather, they argue that it is the environ- big picture thinking’, implying these abilities are seen as
ment, attitudes and/or lack of understanding that causes a ‘superpower’ (Ross, 2018, p. 1). Made by Dyslexia, a
them to be perceived as disabled as well as the necessity charity based in the UK has instigated global campaigns
4 NEURODIVERSITY

such as ‘The Value of Dyslexia: Dyslexic capability and this study explored how dyslexic individuals and their man-
organisations of the future’ a report written by Ernst and agers perceive the various labels used. Specifically, this study
Young with Made by Dyslexia (Addison & Cooke, 2019) focused on how individuals diagnosed with dyslexia and
and the ‘Dyslexic Thinking Campaign’ aimed at raising employers/managers of people with dyslexia regard the lan-
the profile of dyslexic strengths as superpowers. guage, terminology, and the classification of dyslexia, and
[Link] has now included the term ‘Dyslexic how these concepts could impact individuals with dyslexia.
Thinking’ into the dictionary stating that ‘Dyslexic This study utilised the Intersectionality methodology
Thinking is an approach to problem solving, assessing pioneered by Kimberlé Crenshaw, which aimed to
information, and learning, often used by people with dys- address the marginalisation of Black women in antidiscri-
lexia, that involves pattern recognition, spatial reasoning, mination law, feminist theory, and anti-racist movements
lateral thinking, and interpersonal communication’ (Carbado et al., 2013). Intersectionality highlights the
([Link], 2024, p. 1). Dyslexic thinking has also importance of recognising the unique vulnerabilities of
been added as a workplace skill on the world’s largest busi- marginalised and/or disadvantaged communities and indivi-
ness and employment-focused social media platform duals (Carbado et al., 2013). By exploring how different
LinkedIn (Dyslexia, 2024; Ernst and Young, 2019). This aspects of identity intersect and influence experiences of
research brings attention to the significant influence that privilege and oppression, intersectionality provides a valu-
the media and celebrity endorsements can have on able framework for social movements and advocacy efforts
shaping societal views of dyslexia, whether accurate or not. and has been used within other disability groups including
However, the affirmation model and labels such as super- autism, but not within the dyslexic community (Carbado
power, giftedness and dyslexic thinking must be used cau- et al., 2013; Cole, 2009; Pal, 2011; Saxe, 2017).
tiously. Researchers such as Moats (2016) challenge this In this study, the intersectionality framework was combined
perspective, emphasising that while some individuals with with labelling theory, the affirmation model, and the neurodi-
dyslexia excel in specific areas, these talents are not universal vergent movement to analyse the complexities surrounding
traits of dyslexia (Moats, 2016). Numerous authors note that dyslexia labels and their potential impact in leading to disad-
dyslexia can contribute to social and emotional challenges, as vantage and marginalisation. A qualitative design was
well as mental health difficulties like anxiety and depression adopted for this study, to gain perspectives from individuals
(Alexander-Passe, 2015b; Moats, 2016; Nelson & Gregg, with lived experience of dyslexia, and those without dyslexia
2012; Wissell et al., 2021). When viewing dyslexia (but who managed employees with dyslexia), in the workplace
through the neurodiversity paradigm lens, it is crucial not context. To the knowledge of the study’s authors, the prefer-
to inflate the strengths of neurodivergent people, and we ences of dyslexic adults in Australia around condition labels
must continue to acknowledge the challenges and provide have not been explored. This is the first research examining
the required supports needed across education and the work- this from an adult dyslexic perspective.
place (Bury et al., 2019; Moats, 2016).
Bringing these models together highlights the complex Method
nature associated with the label of dyslexia. The different
models demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages
Methodological framework
labels place on people with dyslexia. As observed, the This paper forms part of a larger research project that inves-
social model of disability asserts that societal barriers, not tigated the experiences of Australian adults with dyslexia
individual impairments, primarily disable people across the domains of education and employment, includ-
(Glazzard & Dale, 2015). This model contrasts with the ing the impact of dyslexia on social and emotional well-
medical model, which views disabilities as deficits within being, as well as the experiences of workplaces, employers,
individuals. The affirmation model further emphasises posi- and managers of dyslexic individuals in their workplace
tive identities and strengths, countering the negative per- environment (Wissell, 2023).
ceptions associated with disabilities (Cameron, 2023; During the analysis of qualitative data from the larger
Swain & French, 2000), and the neurodivergence move- study, common themes surfaced through one-on-one inter-
ment advocates for the acceptance and inclusion of neuro- views with participants regarding language, terminology,
logical differences, framing them as natural variations and the classification of dyslexia and how these concepts
rather than dysfunctions (Ortiz, 2020; Reid, 2016). The could impact individuals with dyslexia. Thus, it was felt
impact of labelling on individuals, especially those with that this issue deserved to be treated separately here.
dyslexia, remains underexplored.
Participants
The current study Participants were recruited through email invitation sent to
Given the inconsistency in describing dyslexia and the members of relevant Australian organisations (Dear
growing popularity of the neurodivergence movement, Dyslexic Foundation, Equal Employment Opportunity
Wissell et al. 5

Network), and via social media (LinkedIn, Twitter [X], neurodivergent individuals, challenging traditional views
Facebook). (Stenning & Rosqvist, 2021). Whilst the lead researcher’s
Participants were as follows: insider status offers unique advantages, it can present chal-
Dyslexic employees: lenges and biases such as leading questions and swaying the
analyses in line with personal experiences (Oliver, 2011).
a) Formally diagnosed dyslexic individuals aged 18 or By critically examining my perspectives and engaging in
older, living in Australia, who had participated in the reflexive practices (Dowling, 2006; Rettke et al., 2018),
workforce for at least three years (hereafter referred the research team aimed to ensure that this research hon-
to as ‘dyslexic individuals’ or ‘dyslexic participants’); oured the diversity of dyslexic experiences and challenged
b) Fourteen dyslexic individuals participated (eight potentially alienating narratives. Adopting a neurodivergent
female, six male), aged between 20 and 69 years. perspective in research involves amplifying voices and
evaluating language to promote inclusivity, vulnerability
Employers/managers of dyslexic employees: and empowerment in understanding neurodivergence
(Harris, 2015; Stenning & Rosqvist, 2021).
a) Employers/managers who had worked with a dyslexic
employee and were also aged 18 years or older and
living in Australia (hereafter referred to as Procedure
‘employers’); Ethics approval was obtained from the (blinded for review)
a) Four employers (non-dyslexic) took part (three female, Human Research Ethics Committee. The first author con-
one male), aged between 40 and 50 years. ducted semi-structured interviews via Zoom® with partici-
pants, revealing her own dyslexia at the start to foster
Both groups of participants worked across a variety of roles authenticity and transparency (Harris, 2015; Miller,
and diverse workplaces, in both blue-collar manual labour 2017). Follow-up questions were asked during interviews,
and trades (e.g., disability, mechanics, nursing) and white- and field notes were kept for a comprehensive understand-
collar office-based roles (e.g., teaching, office manage- ing of experiences (Burnard et al., 2008; Elo & Kyngäs,
ment), from on-the-ground personnel to senior management 2008). Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and
positions. Refer to Table 1, participant demographics, for lasted around 30 min on average for dyslexic participants
further details. and employers. Discourse content analysis and interpret-
Employer/manager participants were asked to explore ative repertoire methodologies were used for data analysis
their understanding of the meaning of the term dyslexia (Brian David et al., 2008; Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014).
and/or learning disabilities. All four participants were Discourse content analysis has been applied to other dys-
familiar with the term and held an interpretation of dyslexia lexia research undertaken internationally.
and learning disabilities that was governed either by their Participants were provided with their transcripts and given
own experience of supporting a dyslexic child or through the opportunity to review them. Two participants requested
workplace training. minor amendments (to eliminate identifiable data).
Transcripts were uploaded to NVIVO (version 12), and
de-identified using a numerical code (Korstjens & Moser,
Materials 2018).
Interview questions were generated by the authors based on
the previous literature (e.g., Caskey et al., 2018; Fruja
Amthor, 2017; Livingston et al., 2018; Moody, 2009; Data analysis
Valeras, 2010). Interview questions for dyslexic partici- To explore participants’ lived experiences of labelling, dis-
pants aimed to explore the labels and terminology partici- course content analysis was employed (Elo & Kyngäs,
pants used when describing dyslexia. Interview questions 2008). This method, along with interpretative repertoires
for employer participants aimed to explore participants’ methodology (McKenzie, 2005; Toth, 2014), was used to
understanding of the terms used to describe dyslexia and gain a deeper understanding of participants’ experiences.
other learning disabilities. Examples of questions asked of The cultural and social nuances surrounding the use of lan-
both groups included ‘Some people use the term that dys- guage were explored and there was a focus on how labels
lexia is a superpower, do you think dyslexia is a superpower around dyslexia are used and experienced. This approach
or a disability? Why/Why Not?’ suggests that social reality is socially constructed, and the
As the lead researcher with lived experience, this analysis helps to access and derive meaning from the data
research explores the impact of labelling on those with dys- (Brian David et al., 2008; Guha, 2005).
lexia using a standpoint epistemology to gain deeper Discourse analysis recognises that language allows for
insights into lived experiences. The concept of neurodiver- multiple interpretations of an event a validated method used
gence emphasises the need for research led by by international dyslexia studies (Cameron, 2024; Evans,
6 NEURODIVERSITY

Table 1. Participants demographic.

Employment Age of
Employees Gender status Industry Company size diagnosis Diagnosis

1 Male Full time Higher education Large 26–30 Dyslexia

2 Female Full time Government Small 5–12 Dyslexia possible undiagnosed

dyscalculia and dyspraxia

3 Male Full time Mining Large 13–19 Dyslexia

4 Female Part time Education Small 5–12 Dyslexia and dyscalculia

5 Female Full time Contact centre Large 20–25 Dyslexia

6 Female Unassigned Health care Small 13–19 Dyslexia

7 Male Full time Local government Large 20–25 Dyslexia

8 Male Casual Hospitality and Small 36–40 Dyslexia

tourism

9 Female Unemployed Banking Not applicable 46–50 Dyslexia and auditory processing

10 Female Part time Marketing 5–12 Dyslexia

11 Male Full time Government Medium 13–19 Dyslexia

12 Female Full time Mining Extra large 20–25 Dyslexia

13 Male Retired Higher education Not applicable 5–12 Dyslexia

14 Female Full time Disability Large 5–12 Dyslexia plus co-occurring

difficulty

Employment Age of
Employees Gender status Industry Company size diagnosis Diagnosis

1 Female Full time Not-for-profit Medium NA NA

2 Female Full time Hospitality Large NA NA

3 Female Full time Manufacturing Large NA NA

4 Male Full time Marketing and Small NA NA

communication

2014; Gabriel, 2020; Mo & Chan, 2023). By employing this language to create versions of the social world (McKenzie,
method, the researchers were able to explore the language 2005).
used by and about individuals with dyslexia, and their percep- The preparation phase involved familiarising onself with
tions of these terms. This analysis also examines the relation- the interview data through multiple active readings of the
ship between language and power, highlighting how social transcripts and listening to the recordings. Using interpret-
worlds are created and re-created. Interpretive repertoires ative repertoires, the data were analysed to identify similar-
go further by describing the building blocks participants use ities within the participants’ accounts related to the
for creating versions of actions, cognitive processes, and construction of labels. The authors then examined words
other phenomena (McKenzie, 2005). This approach builds and phrases in the context of emotive language, focusing
on ethnomethodology to describe how individuals use on how language conveyed narratives of events, reasons,
Wissell et al. 7

motives, thoughts, experiences, and feelings regarding to describe others with specific learning disabilities. For
labels like ‘disability’ and ‘superpower’. The two data example, as with ‘my children are dyslexic’, ‘dyslexic sib-
sets (dyslexic and employer participants) were combined, lings and two dyslexic kids’ and ‘she knew she was dyslexic’.
and four repertoires were created: Internalisation and exter- However, participants reported that misconceptions, and a
nal use of labels, disability as a product of the environment, lack of consistency and understanding of the term dyslexia
is dyslexia a superpower?, and the impact of labels on sense from peers, colleagues and others were still a source of frus-
of self (Venäläinen, 2021). tration as P3 described when attending a work meeting …. ‘If
Finally, all transcriptions underwent a thorough re-reading you’re dyslexic this won’t make any sense to you and make a
to ensure the accurate depiction of participants’ data during joke of it, like you’re stupid or something’.
the analysis. Direct quotations from participants were cross Across the lifespan, dyslexic participants stated that the
verified against the identified repertoires to ensure alignment preferred term ‘dyslexia’ was the one most frequently used.
with participants’ narratives (Campbell et al., 2021; Toth, However, there were inconsistencies in people’s under-
2014). Although the researchers had established predeter- standing of the label and whether it was used positively
mined topics for discussion within the interviews, the or negatively by others. For one participant, negative lan-
generic categories and sub-categories were derived from guage was used by others when referring to his difficulties.
the interview data through the described process. He recalled being referred to as ‘dumb, dumb’ [P8] by a
teacher, while in the workplace he was asked what it was
like to ‘have an intellectual disability’ [P8]. So, while par-
Results ticipants used the label dyslexia to describe themselves,
The results highlight the complex nature of language. Four some participants felt the label created negative connota-
repertoires were created, including: Dyslexia the label; tions by being incorrectly associated with intellectual lim-
Disability label paradigm; Dyslexia is not a superpower; itations. Participant P10 also felt that the term dyslexia as
and Labels and sense of self. used by others, was an overarching label for all learning dif-
ficulties. They stated,
Dyslexia the label …I would question whether I had dyslexia. Rather, it was a
Participants reported feeling overwhelmed, bombarded and learning disposition or something. I don’t think I’m strictly
at times disrespected, embarrassed, and humiliated by the dyslexic, but that was the label I was diagnosed with, and
myriads of nomenclatures and labels placed on them, and that’s the label I grew up with and that’s the label that all
used to describe their difficulties by family, as well as the interventions were based around…. [P10]
education, health, and employment sectors and society.
For all participants, different medical (for those diagnosed) Participants were also asked if they had heard of the term
and/or negative terms were used from childhood and fol- neurodiversity and if they felt a connection to this term.
lowed them into adulthood. Medical terminology used by Most participants had heard of the term but did not feel
health professionals, educators and employers included: an association with it. This group of participants did not
dyslexia, learning disability, learning difference, learning identify as part of a neurodivergent community.
difficulties, specific learning disability, reading disorder,
specific learning impairment, deficit, disorder, dyscalculia,
dysgraphia, and auditory processing. Terms used by educa-
tors, peers, work colleagues and society, and by participants Disability paradigm
themselves to describe themselves, included examples of The label ‘disability’ was considered by all participants to
‘ableist’ language such as: dumb, stupid, lazy, slow, thick, be the most emotive label, and one that triggered the most
retarded and intellectually disabled. discussion. Some dyslexic participants used the term ‘dis-
Out of the diagnostic terms used to label the perceived ability’ to describe their difficulties because it is the term
deficiencies associated with dyslexia, the labels that reso- used in legislation. P6 stated, ‘…I’ve been calling it a dis-
nated with participants the most, and the preferred ones ability because, according to law, it’s a disability. But I
were learning preferences, dyslexia, dyslexic and reading hate calling it a disability…’. [P6]. Other dyslexic partici-
difficulties. All participants used the words dyslexia and pants reported that they didn’t feel comfortable ticking the
dyslexic interchangeably to describe their differences/diffi- disability box when filling out forms. P4 stated ‘… It’s inter-
culties using phrases such as ‘I am dyslexic’, ‘I know that’s esting because, over the years, filling in forms, I’ve wanted to
probably a dyslexic thing’, ‘dyslexic person’, ‘dyslexic tick, ‘well, it is a disability’, but then it’s not in that right cat-
people’, ‘my dyslexic ability’. These phrases were the egory. But it is a disability, definitely…’ [P4].
labels most personally acceptable and that they felt other Interestingly, although most participants appeared to feel
people could also understand. Participants explained that more comfortable using the term disability when describing
the words ‘dyslexic’ and ‘dyslexia’ were labels they used their difficulties, yet their preference was to use Identify first
8 NEURODIVERSITY

language to describe themselves as dyslexic as they did not Dyslexia is not a superpower
connect to using the label disability.
When dyslexic participants were asked if they would use
Some participants felt the ‘disability’ label was only
the word superpower to describe their dyslexia, the major-
appropriate because of the lack of support for people with
ity (n = 10) said they would not. While they did not relate to
dyslexia. As P10 stated,
the term superpower, they were more inclined to speak of
strengths they could identify. For some, their strengths
…I think fundamentally [dyslexia] made me who I am and I
had been born out of necessity and survival. These included
love it, and I love the strength that it gives me in other areas,
creative thinking, problem-solving, lateral thinking,
but because of the way our society and education systems
empathy, strong interpersonal skills, seeing patterns and
are set up, it is cripplingly difficult to grow up in… [P10]
resilience. P11 reflected,
Twelve participants stated that they felt disabled by their …I don’t consider that [dyslexia is] the source of my cre-
dyslexia while performing specific work-related tasks, ativity for example or my ability to speak freely in large
involving spelling, writing complete and grammatically groups. I think that’s potentially a reflection of me over-
correct sentences, proofreading their work, and drafting coming a challenge, developing strengths in different
reports. P11 stated, ‘…No, it’s definitely a disability. I areas to work around it [dyslexia]…. [P11]
think for many years I would call it a curse. [On] my bad
days, I definitely still see it as that…’ [P11]. P2 stated Four participants felt that dyslexia could be a super-
that ‘In the situation [where I’m not] able to write, that’s power, yet they were hesitant to link it to their own experi-
a disability for me…’ [P2]. ence of dyslexia. For example, P6 pondered, ‘…Is it a
Some participants equated the term ‘disability’ with superpower? It can be, I think. For some people it can be
feeling less capable than others and tended to use it when a superpower. But then what’s a superpower? So, I think
they were experiencing feelings of shame, embarrassment, it can be. But then everybody has their own hidden super-
and frustration, such as when performing a difficult task power, I think’ [P6]. P13 thought in terms of dyslexia
that appeared easier for others. As adults, participants being an opportunity rather than a superpower: ‘You are dif-
were able to discuss where these feelings of perceived inad- ferent. You can see that as a threat or as an opportunity.
equacy started and reported that it was usually within the Whether it’s causation, or whether it’s just correlation
education system. As P1 described, ‘…Yes, it’s a disability [with my dyslexia] I don’t know…’ [P6].
of a kind. In the formative stages, it was a massive disabil- Participants felt that in managing their condition, they
ity. Our education system doesn’t give you a lot of oppor- were able to build strengths. P12 commented ‘…I actually
tunities, [it’s] the way we’ve got it set up…’ [P1]. P10 think [my strengths are] more environmental, as a coping
explained how they felt their workplace environment dis- mechanism, rather than a pure attribute of being dys-
abled them to the point where they hid their true authentic lexic…’ [P12]. Four participants felt they thought differ-
self: ently from their non-dyslexic peers. Of these, two felt that
the ability to think and see differently from how others
…It [dyslexia] slows me down terribly. It makes me hesi- thought was a cause of frustration for them and their non-
tate on doing things that I think need to be done, but I’m dyslexic peers rather than a strength. However, for others,
worried about the barrier of getting it done, because of their diagnosis of dyslexia had highlighted areas of strength
the workload or mental effort. I feel like if those barriers that they felt able to capitalise on such as resilience and big
were lifted, I would achieve a lot more. And the fact I picture thinking.
can’t really be myself a hundred percent in the workplace. Employer participants who did not have dyslexia but had
I can’t really bring my whole self to the table. I have to a family member who was dyslexic or had undertaken dys-
reserve a part of me…. [P10] lexia training, so already had a high level of awareness and
understanding were asked whether they would use the
Also contributing to the sense of disability was the ‘superpower’ or ‘disability’ label to describe dyslexic
‘invisibility’ of dyslexia. Participants reported that others employees within the workplace. All four participants
could forget their challenges in the workplace as they believed that given the right work environment, they
were not visible. P14 stated, would use the superpower label rather than disability.
Participants described the strengths they saw in their dys-
… There’s an assumption that I can write the emails cor- lexic employees: creativity, thinking outside the box, per-
rectly. I don’t know, an assumption that I’m just like sistence, hard work, resourcefulness, innovation, thinking
them. I always use an excuse. ‘I’m sorry. I’m the worst differently and resilience. P4 stated,
speller in the world and I couldn’t spell that word and all
that’. I try and cover it up. It’s majorly [a disability], …Yes. It’s definitely a superpower. It gives people the
yeah. It creates anxiety…. [P14] ability to think outside the box. I think, a strength.
Wissell et al. 9

Persistence is a big part of dyslexia. Because everything is a societal attitudes. It calls for a more in-depth understanding
lot harder to begin with. So, the resilience and the ability to and support for individuals with dyslexia in various con-
overcome challenges and to find different ways of working, texts and the inclusion of the dyslexic voice.
to network and to be resourceful – they’re all skills of suc- Using the Intersectional framework, a significant finding
cessful dyslexics. I think it’s only someone that hasn’t over- of this work was the inconsistent use of labels to diagnose
come or isn’t aware of their dyslexia or is shamed by it, that and explain ‘dyslexia’ by those in authority within the
carries that trauma with them. And that’s a very different Australian context. This often occurs in the absence of the
story. And they could likely be dysfunctional and toxic dyslexic voice, leading to disempowerment and feelings
within a working environment. My experience is that of low self-efficacy. The varied labels for dyslexia contrib-
person is the minority, not the majority at all… [P1] ute to confusion and complex debates in medical, research,
education, and employment settings. (Kranz et al., 2024;
Serry & Hammond, 2015), often disregarding the term
Impact of labels on sense of self ‘dyslexia’ used by those with lived experience
Dyslexic participants described mixed feelings about being (Alexander-Passe, 2015a, 2018). Despite negative connota-
given a label following their diagnosis of dyslexia. Some tions, ‘dyslexia’ seemed a more acceptable description.
described feeling elated that they now had an explanation This highlights a disparity in language preferences com-
for why they had struggled throughout school, while pared to other neurodivergent conditions, such as autism,
others reported feeling frustrated that they had not been where debates revolve around identity-first versus person-
diagnosed when younger. Overall, the inconsistent use of first language. In contrast, individuals with dyslexia face
labels to describe participants’ difficulties that started in inconsistencies in the labels used to describe their identity
childhood and continued throughout their lives had signifi- and challenges, leading to confusion and uncertainty
cant consequences for participants’ sense of self. about appropriate labels and contexts for disclosure. This
Participants described how labels such as ‘disability’ or underscores the need for more precise and more consistent
‘learning disability’ left them feeling self-conscious, embar- terminology for individuals with dyslexia, aligning with
rassed, ashamed, and unable to be their true authentic selves their experiences and preferences, like other neurodivergent
as they progressed into adulthood and beyond. P5 stated, groups like autism and ADHD. Additionally, it highlights
‘…I didn’t think I had any ability…’ [P5], while P8 the importance of recognising the voices of dyslexic
noted, ‘…Your self-worth…when you’re growing up, a adults from various perspectives in the discussion surround-
lot is based on reading and writing…’. ing learning disabilities, labelling, and terminology. The
One participant worked in a primary school garden and principle ‘Nothing about us, without us’ commonly used
reported being open about her dyslexia when working with by disability advocates and medical professionals (Iezzoni
the children. However, disclosing her diagnosis to manage- & Long-Bellil, 2012; Nelson et al., 1998) should be
ment was more difficult. P4 stated ‘…I suppose, one thing applied in this context.
that sometimes can be confronting is how people are going A lack of resonance with the disability label was discov-
to perceive me…’ [P4]. In one situation, the participant ered, with participants viewing challenges in reading and
blamed a child for her spelling error as she felt intimidated writing not as a disability but as difficulties within different
by the senior person she was speaking to. ‘…I felt embar- contexts. This highlights the complex situation for indivi-
rassed [that there was a spelling mistake] in front of these duals with dyslexia as they navigate between the medical
big wigs, usually I have no problem [about disclosing my model, the social model of disability and the neurodiver-
diagnosis] but, for some reason, I felt intimidated that day gence movement. Interviewees described the notion that
and I lied…’ [P4]. dyslexia is a hidden disability and that there are many chal-
For most participants, labels were a double-edged lenges associated with a hidden difficulty/difference. This
sword—on the one hand, they explained their literacy and understanding is also supported by much of the disability
numeracy difficulties. On the other hand, disclosing the literature (Alexander-Passe, 2018; Hernandez-Saca, 2020;
diagnosis could have potential consequences, including a Marshall et al., 2020; Sumner & Brown, 2015; Valeras,
lack of understanding or awareness or being open to 2010). A key finding from this research is that adults with
discrimination and prejudice. dyslexia prefer identity-first language, such as ‘I am a dys-
lexic person’, rather than person-first language like ‘I have
dyslexia’. This is the opposite finding from work by Evans
Discussion (2014), who found that students with dyslexia referred to
This research investigated the experiences of individuals person-first language, highlighting the changes in labelling
with dyslexia and non-dyslexic managers and employers and the different preferences amongst the dyslexic commu-
regarding label usage, revealing four key themes. This nity (Evans, 2014). However, this research found that many
research emphasises the multifaceted impact of see dyslexia as part of their identity rather than using the
dyslexia-related labels on emotions, self-perception, and label of disabled or being disabled.
10 NEURODIVERSITY

Historically, the discussion around identity-first versus superpower. Instead, they embraced the concept of
person-first language has been more prominent within ‘strengths’, with varying perspectives on whether these
other disability and neurodivergent groups, such as the aut- strengths were directly linked to dyslexia or were developed
istic community (Botha et al., 2023; Flink, 2021; Grech as coping mechanisms. Over time, as participants pro-
et al., 2023). The new insight into the language preferences gressed into their middle years and achieved personal and
of adults with dyslexia suggests that their experiences and professional growth, the impact of the dyslexia label
perspectives have been underexplored, highlighting a gap became less sticky and less significant for some
in the research. Understanding the preference for identity- (Thompson, 2014). This work aligns with Thompson
first language among dyslexic individuals can inform how (2014), who found that many began recognising a label’s
educators, employers, and policymakers communicate positive attributes and strengths rather than focusing
with and support the dyslexic community. This shift in per- solely on challenges or disabilities. Various researchers
spective indicates a need for further research and awareness have noted similar qualities in the literature, including
to better support and understand the unique challenges and McNulty (2003) and Wissell (2023, 2022). There is a
identities within the dyslexic community. lack of research in this area, and it is worth considering
The medical model emphasises the importance of that terms such as ‘dyslexic thinking’ and ‘superpower’
accepting the disability label to access necessary support, are gaining traction because of efforts to raise awareness
but many participants resisted this label, perceiving it as a of dyslexia and reduce stigma surrounding it. However, it
negative differentiation from their peers. This viewpoint is important to acknowledge that some individuals with
lends itself to the social model of disability, which dyslexia may not resonate with this label, as identified by
focuses on environmental rather than individual deficits Moates work (Moats, 2016) potentially causing undue pres-
(Haegele & Hodge, 2016). Yet moving beyond the social sure and impacting one’s sense of self. The disparities
model of disability, the concept of neurodiversity as a between the perspectives of dyslexic individuals and
label did not resonate with the participants either, despite employers suggest that further discussion on this topic
the growing focus of the neurodivergence movement glo- may be beneficial.
bally and embedment within educational, health, and From an outside perspective, employers and managers
employment programs, as well as increasing media atten- tended to view employees with dyslexia as having potential
tion. However, dyslexia is still often overlooked. It should superpowers, emphasising qualities such as creativity and
be noted that neurodivergence is a social justice (Singer, persistence when an employee was well supported in their
2016) term rather than a defined scientific term, with no job role. The traits discussed align with findings from inter-
set understanding of its meaning; many conditions now national work, which also identified superpower-like qual-
fall under this umbrella term (Clinic, 2024). From a ities in dyslexic adults as, for example, strong creativity,
research perspective the label of neurodivergence requires problem-solving ability and empathy (Addison & Cooke,
further examination within the dyslexic community. This 2019; Eide & Eide, 2011; Ross, 2018). Employers also
term could narrow the lens through which the complexities expressed that exposure to outside influences, such as a
of dyslexia are understood, leading to uniform expectations family connection to dyslexia (having a child/children) or
in education and the workplace. dyslexia training, aided their positive perception of dyslexic
Furthermore, this research suggests that dyslexic indivi- employees and their abilities to succeed within the work-
duals may experience a disconnect from neurodivergent place, when the right workplace adjustments were imple-
groupings and the medical and social models of disability. mented. This highlights the role of power and the
Without a clear framework that fully represents their experi- conflicting views between those with the power (managers
ences and needs, the dyslexic community may feel lost and workplaces) and those with dyslexia (dyslexic employ-
amongst louder and powerful voices, such as those advocat- ees). It’s at the manager’s discretion to determine what is
ing for neurodivergent identities or those in authoritative considered a superpower versus a deficit, giving them the
positions. This indicates a need for further exploration authority to decide if someone should have access to the
and understanding of their unique experiences within workplace accommodations necessary for them to thrive.
these frameworks. These novel findings emphasise the intersectionality
The narrative of dyslexia as a ‘superpower’ and ‘dys- theory of the role of power and privilege and the need to
lexic thinking’ has gained traction within some parts of acknowledge this in the growing body of work regarding
the dyslexic community (Addison & Cooke, 2019; adulthood dyslexia in the workplace.
Beever, 2022; Dyslexia, 2024; Eide & Eide, 2011; Labelling theory is also pertinent, as the study explores
Threlkeld, 2015); however, this perspective is not univer- the complex relationship between labels and individuals’
sally embraced and needs further research. Whilst some experiences. Labels, both positive and negative, can signifi-
successful individuals within this research related to this cantly influence self-perception and behaviour. The
idea not everyone attributed their success to dyslexia. research findings align with the international literature con-
Many in this research rejected the idea of dyslexia as a sidering the impact of negative ablest labelling on those
Wissell et al. 11

with disabilities including dyslexia (Alexander-Passe, Furthermore, employer participants had a personal connec-
2015b; Brzykcy & Boehm, 2022; Granello & Gibbs, tion with a person with dyslexia (family member or col-
2016; Taylor et al., 2010). Negative and at times traumatic league) and were also aware that the person conducting
experiences in childhood such as the use of derogatory the interview was dyslexic. This may have influenced
labels (e.g., dumb-dumb and stupid), often led to feelings responses. Future research should consider involving a
of being different and less capable, with concerns about broader range of employers and managers who work with
being perceived negatively, highlighting a prevalent form people with dyslexia but do not have lived experience of
of ableism. Through an intersectional lens, the role of dyslexia in their families. This extended research will
power and authoritarianism that educators, medical specia- help identify if this cohort still considers dyslexia a strength
lists and parents have during the formative years, is high- or a difficulty to manage. Studies with a more significant
lighted. These authority figures often impose labels that number of participants with a diagnosis of dyslexia,
can marginalise individuals with dyslexia, taking away working across a range of professional workplace settings
their power and reinforcing societal status quos (Lei & and a range of social and economic strata in society,
Rhodes, 2021). This study also demonstrates the intersec- would extend this research.
tionality of dyslexia and ableism, emphasising how
ableist language and behaviours create barriers in the work-
place and society. Within the intersectional framework, Conclusion
ableism of stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, power This research aimed to understand the impact of labels on
and social oppression can be directed towards individuals dyslexic adults. Applying labels to people can create cat-
with disabilities (Bogart & Dunn, 2019; Saxe, 2017; egories of difference. The narrative created by groups
Scheim & Bauer, 2019). Instances of ableist language and within the dyslexic community reinforces the notion of
jokes such as ‘you don’t look dyslexic’, contribute to sys- ‘superpowers’. This deprives individuals of the right to
temic discrimination against individuals with disabilities, own and describe their strengths and difficulties as dys-
extending to those with non-visible conditions like dys- lexics. Here, we shed light on the complex role of labels
lexia. Although comments are often made without ill and the nuanced relationship individuals with dyslexia
intent (Campbell, 2008), this study highlights the need for have within the dyslexic community and in educational,
further education around dyslexia among the Australian workplace and societal settings. Additionally, it highlights
community. power dynamics, particularly those held by individuals in
This research emphasises the complex relationship positions of authority or privilege who assign these labels.
between models, social movements, language, labels and This power dynamic may lead to feelings of dependence
individuals’ experiences, acknowledging the heterogeneity on policymakers, managers, and public figures to provide
within not just the dyslexic population but the broader neu- necessary support and shape the narrative surrounding dys-
rodivergent population and the spectrum nature of these dif- lexia, potentially limiting the autonomy and self-
ferences. It suggests that the adult dyslexic voice is not determination of dyslexic individuals.
included in the labelling narrative. Drawing on previous lit- Considering these findings, this study advocates for
erature (Fruja Amthor, 2017; Pal, 2011; Saxe, 2017), this increased awareness, understanding, and sensitivity
work demonstrates the role of intersectionality, power and towards the diverse experiences of individuals with dys-
privilege (Pal, 2011) within disability and the double-edged lexia. It emphasises the need to acknowledge the role of
nature of labels: they can maintain social norms, leading to intersectionality and to challenge societal norms that per-
discrimination, marginalisation, stigmatisation, and feel- petuate ableism. It calls for more inclusive language and
ings of inadequacy (Alexander-Passe, 2015b; Gibson, emphasises the importance of recognising and including
2019; Riddick, 2000; Taylor et al., 2010). However, when dyslexic voices in discussions as reflected within other neu-
labels are just, they can lead to self-determination and per- rodivergent communities. In doing so, we can foster a more
sonal empowerment (Beever, 2022; [Link], 2024; supportive and equitable environment for individuals with
Ross, 2018; Spencer, 2018). The complexity of labels calls dyslexia, acknowledging their strengths and unique contri-
for greater awareness and understanding of dyslexia’s butions while working towards dismantling the barriers
diverse impacts, emphasising the inclusion of the lived imposed by societal expectations and stereotypes.
experiences of dyslexic adults.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge and
Limitations thank the participants who were interviewed for this research as
well as the supervisors of this research, Leila Karimi, RMIT
The available sample size was small, limiting the transfer- University, Tanya Serry, La Trobe University and Lisa Furlong,
ability of the findings as the challenges and successes pre- La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia. The authors would
sented here may not represent the broader experiences of also like to acknowledge the Dear Dyslexic Foundation and re:
leaders who have worked with employees with dyslexia. think dyslexia, who partnered with La Trobe University to
12 NEURODIVERSITY

undertake this research, as well as Leanne Di Stefano for her autism and stigma. Disability & Society, 37(3), 427–453.
editing support in the development of this paper. [Link]
Botha, M., Hanlon, J., & Williams, G. L. (2023). Does language
Declaration of conflicting interests: The authors declared no matter? Identity-first versus person-first language use in
potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, autism research: A response to Vivanti. Journal of Autism
authorship, and/or publication of this article. and Developmental Disorders, 53(2), 870–878. [Link]
org/10.1007/s10803-020-04858-w
Brian David, H., Ayelet, K., & Scott, R. (2008). Qualitative
Funding: This work was supported by an Australian Government research: Discourse analysis. BMJ: British Medical Journal,
Research Training Program Scholarship.
337(7669), 570–572. [Link]
Brzykcy, A., & Boehm, S. (2022). No such thing as a free ride:
ORCID iD: Shae Wissell [Link] The impact of disability labels on relationship building at
1141 work. Human Relations (New York), 75(4), 734–763. https://
[Link]/10.1177/0018726721991609
Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B.
References (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data. British
Addison, R., & Cooke, B. (2019). The value of dyslexia dyslexic Dental Journal, 204(8), 429–432. [Link]
capability and organisations of the future. E. Y. LLP. bdj.2008.292
Al-Yagon, M., Cavendish, W., Cornoldi, C., Fawcett, A. J., Bury, S. M., Hedley, D., Uljarević , M., Dissanayake, C., & Gal, E.
Grünke, M., Hung, L., Jiménez, J. E., Karande, S., van (2019). If you’ve employed one person with autism …: An indi-
Kraayenoord, C. E., Lucangeli, D., Margalit, M., Montague, vidual difference approach to the autism advantage at work.
M., Sholapurwala, R., Sideridis, G., Tressoldi, P. E., & Vio, Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice,
C. (2013). The proposed changes for DSM-5 for SLD and 23(6), 1607–1608. [Link]
ADHD: International perspectives: Australia, Germany, Cameron, C. (2023). Some things never seem to change: Further
Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, towards an affirmation model. Disability & Society, 1–6.
and the United States. J Learn Disabil, 46(1), 58–72. https:// [Link]
[Link]/10.1177/0022219412464353 Cameron, H. (2024). It’s been taken away: An experience of a dis-
Alexander-Passe, N. (2015a). The dyslexia experience: appearing dyslexia diagnosis. International Journal of
Difference, disclosure, labelling, discrimination and stigma. Inclusive Education, 28(1), 1–15. [Link]
Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences, 2(2), 33. 13603116.2021.1902003
[Link] Campbell, F. K. (2008). Refusing Able(ness): A preliminary con-
Alexander-Passe, N. (2015b). Dyslexia: Investigating self-harm versation about ableism. M/C Journal, 11(3). [Link]
and suicidal thoughts/attempts as a coping strategy. Journal [Link] [Link] [Link]
of Psychology & Psychotherapy, 5(6), 11. [Link] [Link]/[Link]/mcjournal/article/view/46
10.4172/2161-0487.1000224 Campbell, K., Orr, E., Durepos, P., Nguyen, L., Li, L., Whitmore,
Alexander-Passe, N. (2018). Should ‘developmental dyslexia’ be C., Gehrke, P., Graham, L., & Jack, S. (2021). Reflexive the-
understood as a disability or a difference? Asia Pacific matic analysis for applied qualitative health research.
Journal of Developmental Differences, 5(2), 247–271. https:// Qualitative Report, 26(6), 2011–2028. [Link]
[Link]/10.3850/S2345734118000159 46743/2160-3715/2021.5010
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Neurodevelopment Carbado, D. W., Crenshaw, K. W., Mays, V. M., & Tomlinson, B.
Conditions. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental dis- (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory.
orders (5th ed., text rev., pp. 35–36). Du Bois Review, 10(2), 303–312. [Link]
Attoe, D. E., & Climie, E. A. (2023). Miss. Diagnosis: A system- S1742058X13000349
atic review of ADHD in adult women. Journal of Attention Caskey, J., Innes, P., & Lovell, G. P. (2018). Making a difference:
Disorders, 27(7), 645–657. [Link] Dyslexia and social identity in educational contexts. Support for
231161533 Learning, 33(1), 73–88. [Link]
Australian Government. (2024). Draft national autism strategy. Clinic, C. (2024). Neurodivergent. Cleveland Clinic. [Link]
Beever, S. (2022). My dyslexia … is now my superpower: [Link]/health/symptoms/23154-neurodivergent
Schoolgirl has learned to embrace her amazing gift. Hull Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology.
Daily Mail, 9. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. [Link]
Bogart, K. R., & Dunn, D. S. (2019). Ableism special issue intro- 1037/a0014564
duction. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 650–664. [Link] Collinson, C. (2020). Ordinary language use and the social con-
[Link]/doi/full/10.1111/josi.12345 struction of dyslexia. Disability & Society, 35(6), 993–1006.
Bond, J. (2021). A comparative study of education policy in [Link]
Scotland (United Kingdom) and New South Wales Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). Australia: Act No. 135 of
(Australia): The impact of two contrasting legislative and 1992, Disability Discrimination Act 1992: National
policy approaches on secondary students with dyslexia. Legislative Bodies / National Authorities. [Link]
Flinders University. [Link]/docid/[Link]
Botha, M., Dibb, B., & Frost, D. M. (2022). Autism is me: An Deacon, L., Macdonald, S. J., & Donaghue, J. (2022). What’s
investigation of how autistic individuals make sense of wrong with you? Are you stupid? Listening to the biographical
Wissell et al. 13

narratives of adults with dyslexia in an age of ‘inclusive’ and illnesses”. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94(1), 31–
‘anti-discriminatory’ practice. Disability & Society, 37(3), 40. [Link]
406–426. [Link] Grech, L. B., Koller, D., & Olley, A. (2023). Furthering the
den Houting, J. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective. person-first versus identity-first language debate. Australian
Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, Psychologist, (ahead-of-print), 1–10. [Link]
23(2), 271–273. [Link] 00050067.2023.2192863
[Link] (2024). Dyslexic thinking. [Link]. https:// Grigorenko, E. L., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Wagner, R. K.,
[Link]/browse/dyslexic-thinking. Willcutt, E. G., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). Understanding, educat-
Dowling, M. (2006). Approaches to reflexivity in qualitative ing, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities:
research. Nursing Research, 13(3), 7–21. [Link] 50 years of science and practice. American Psychologist,
7748/nr2006.[Link].c5975 75(1), 37–51. [Link]
Dyslexia, M. B. (2024). Dyslexic thinking campaign film. Made Guha, M. (2005). The sage encyclopedia of social science research
by dyslexia. [Link] methods. Reference Reviews, 19(3), 15–15. [Link]
Eide, B., & Eide, F. (2011). The dyslexic advantage: Unlocking 1108/09504120510587535
the hidden potential of the dyslexic brain. Penguin. Haegele, J. A., & Hodge, S. (2016). Disability discourse: Overview
Eissa, M. (2010). Behavioral and emotional problems associated and critiques of the medical and social models. Quest (National
with dyslexia in adolescence. Current Psychiatry., 17, 17–25. Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education), 68(2), 193–
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis 206. [Link]
process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. Harris, M. (2015). Three in the room: Embodiment, disclosure, and
[Link] vulnerability in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research,
Ernst and Young (2019). The value of dyslexia dyslexic capability 25(12), 1689–1699. [Link]
and organisations of the future. E. A. Young. Hernandez-Saca, D. I. (2020). My learning dis/ability and disabil-
Evans, W. (2014). ‘I am not a dyslexic person I’m a person with ity studies in education activism. Peace Review (Palo Alto,
dyslexia’: Identity constructions of dyslexia among students Calif.), 31(4), 487–496. [Link]
in nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(2), 2019.1800935
360–372. [Link] Huda, A. S. (2019). The medical model in mental health: An
Flink, P. (2021). Person-first & identity-first language: Supporting explanation and evaluation. Oxford University Press.
students with disabilities on campus. Community College Hughes-Lynch, C. E. (2022). Parenting bright kids with autism:
Journal of Research and Practice, 45(2), 79–85. [Link] Helping twice-exceptional children with Asperger’s and high-
org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1640147 functioning autism. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Frolov, L., & Schaepper, M. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical Iezzoni, L. I. M. D. M. S., & Long-Bellil, L. M. P. D. J. D. (2012).
manual of mental disorders. American Psychiatric Association Training physicians about caring for persons with disabilities:
Publishing. [Link] “Nothing about us without us!”. Disability and Health Journal,
learning-disorder/what-is-specific-learning-disorder 5(3), 136–139. [Link]
Fruja Amthor, R. (2017). If only I did not have that label attached to Kirby, P. (2020). Dyslexia debated, then and now: A historical per-
me: Foregrounding self-positioning and intersectionality in the spective on the dyslexia debate. Oxford Review of Education,
experiences of immigrant and refugee youth. Multicultural 46(4), 472–486. [Link]
Perspectives (Mahwah, N.J.), 19(4), 193–206. [Link] Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to
10.1080/15210960.2017.1366862 qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing.
Gabriel, R. E. (2020). Converting to privatization: A discourse European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–124.
analysis of dyslexia policy narratives. American Educational [Link]
Research Journal, 57(1), 305–338. [Link] Kranz, A. E., Serry, T. A., & Snow, P. C. (2024).
0002831219861945 Twice-exceptionality unmasked: A systematic narrative
Gibbs, S. J., & Elliott, J. G. (2020). The dyslexia debate: Life review of the literature on identifying dyslexia in the gifted
without the label. Oxford Review of Education, 46(4), 487– child. Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 30(1), e1763. https://
500. [Link] [Link]/10.1002/dys.1763
Gibson, B. E. (2019). Worlding disability: Categorizations, labels, Lei, R. F., & Rhodes, M. (2021). Why developmental research on
and the making of people. AJOB Neuroscience, 10(2), 85–87. social categorization needs intersectionality. Child Development
[Link] Perspectives, 15(3), 143–147. [Link]
Gilger, J. W., Talavage, T. M., & Olulade, O. A. (2013). An fMRI Livingston, E. M., Siegel, L. S., & Ribary, U. (2018).
study of nonverbally gifted Reading disabled adults: Has deficit Developmental dyslexia: Emotional impact and consequences.
compensation effected gifted potential? Frontiers in Human Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 23(2), 107–135.
Neuroscience, 7, 507. [Link] [Link]
00507 Lyon, G., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2003). A definition of
Glazzard, J., & Dale, K. (2015). It takes me half a bottle of whisky dyslexia. An Interdisciplinary Journal of The International
to get through one of your assignments: Exploring one teacher Dyslexia Association, 53(1), 1–14. [Link]
educator’s personal experiences of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 21(2), s11881-003-0001-9
177–192. [Link] Macdonald, S. J. (2010). Towards a social reality of dyslexia.
Granello, D. H., & Gibbs, T. A. (2016). The power of language British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 9. [Link]
and labels: “The mentally ill” versus “people with mental 10.1111/j.1468-3156.2009.00601.x
14 NEURODIVERSITY

Madaus, J., Reis, S., Gelbar, N., Delgado, J., & Cascio, A. (2022). Ortiz, L. A. (2020). Reframing neurodiversity as competitive
Perceptions of factors that facilitate and impede learning advantage: Opportunities, challenges, and resources for busi-
among twice-exceptional college students with autism spec- ness and professional communication educators. Business
trum disorder. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 193, and Professional Communication Quarterly, 83(3), 261–284.
107627–107627. [Link] [Link]
Madaus, J., Tarconish, E., Langdon, S. W., & Gelbar, N. (2022). Pal, G. C. (2011). Disability, intersectionality and deprivation:
High school and transition experiences of twice exceptional An excluded agenda. Psychology and Developing
students with autism spectrum disorder: Parents’ perceptions. Societies, 23(2), 159–176. [Link]
Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 995356–995356. [Link] 097133361102300202
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.995356 Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, A. (2014). A practical guide to using
Marshall, J. E., Fearon, C., Highwood, M., & Warden, K. (2020). interpretative phenomenological analysis in qualitative
What should I say to my employer… if anything?- My disabil- research psychology. Journal Psychological, 20(1), 7.
ity disclosure dilemma. International Journal of Educational Reid, G. (2016). Dyslexia: A practitioner’s handbook (5th ed.).
Management, 34(7), 1105–1117. [Link] Continuum International Publishing Group.
IJEM-01-2020-0028 Rettke, A. H., Pretto, A. M., Spichiger, A. E., Frei, A. I., & Spirig,
McKenzie, P. J. (2005). Interpretative repertoires. In K. E. Fiher, A. R. (2018). Using reflexive thinking to establish rigor in
S. Erdelez, & L. E. F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of informa- qualitative research. Nursing Research, 67(6), 490–497.
tion behavior: A researcher’s guide (p. 6). Western FIMS. [Link]
McNulty, M. A. (2003). Dyslexia and the life course. Journal of Riddick, B. (2000). An examination of the relationship between
Learning Disabilities, 36(4), 363–381. [Link] labelling and stigmatisation with special reference to dyslexia.
10.1177/00222194030360040701 Disability & Society, 15(4), 653–667. [Link]
Metzger, A. N., & Hamilton, L. T. (2021). The stigma of ADHD: 09687590050058233
Teacher ratings of labeled students. Sociological Perspectives, Ross, D. (2018). Don’t waste our superpowers: let’s help man-
64(2), 258–279. [Link] agers support neurodiverse civil servants. Civil Service World.
Miller, T. (2017). Telling the difficult things: Creating spaces for Saxe, A. (2017). The theory of intersectionality: A new Lens for
disclosure, rapport and ‘collusion’ in qualitative interviews. understanding the barriers faced by autistic women.
Women’s Studies International Forum, 61, 81–86. [Link] Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 6(4), 153–178.
org/10.1016/[Link].2016.07.005 [Link]
Mo, K. Y.-H., & Chan, S. T.-M. (2023). Critical realist discourse Scheim, A. I., & Bauer, G. R. (2019). The intersectional discrim-
analysis of Chinese parents of children with dyslexia. ination index: Development and validation of measures of
International Social Work, 66(2), 329–341. [Link] self-reported enacted and anticipated discrimination for
1177/0020872820972470 intercategorical analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 226,
Moats, L. (2016). Allegiance to the facts: Best approach for 225–235. [Link]
students with dyslexia. International Dyslexia Association. 2018.12.016
[Link] Senate, T. (2023). Assessment and support services for people
students-with-dyslexia/. with ADHD.
Moll, K., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., Bruder, J., & Schulte-Körne, G. Serry, T. A., & Hammond, L. (2015). What’s in a word? Australian
(2014). Specific learning disorder: Prevalence and gender dif- experts’ knowledge, views and experiences using the term dys-
ferences. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e103537–e103537. [Link] lexia. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 143–
10.1371/[Link].0103537 161. [Link]
Moody, S. (2009). Dyslexia and employment: A guide for asses- Singer, J. (2016). Neurodiversity: The birth of an idea. Kindle
sors, trainers and managers. Wiley-Blackwell. eBook.
Murthi, K., Chen, Y.-L., Martin, W., Riccio, A., & Patten, K. Snowling, M. J. (2013). Early identification and interventions for
(2024). Understanding STEM outcomes for Autistic middle dyslexia: A contemporary view. Journal of Research in Special
schoolers in an interest-based, afterschool program: A qualita- Educational Needs, 13(1), 7–14. [Link]
tive study. Research in Science Education (Australasian 1471-3802.2012.01262.x
Science Education Research Association). [Link] Snowling, M. J. (2019). Dyslexia: A very short introduction.
1007/s11165-024-10158-5 Oxford University Press.
Nelson, J. M., & Gregg, N. (2012). Depression and anxiety among Snowling Hulme, C. T., & Nation, K. (2020). Defining and under-
transitioning adolescents and college students with ADHD, standing dyslexia: Past, present and future. Oxford Review of
dyslexia, or comorbid ADHD/dyslexia. Journal of Attention Education, 46(4), 501–513. [Link]
Disorders, 16(3), 244–254. [Link] 85.2020.1765756
10385783 Spencer, I. (2018). Dyslexia is my superpower (most of the time).
Nelson, G., Ochocka, J., Griffin, K., & Lord, J. (1998). Nothing The School Librarian, 66(4), 258.
about me, without me: Participatory action research with self- Stenning, A., & Rosqvist, H. B. (2021). Neurodiversity studies:
help/mutual aid organizations for psychiatric consumer/survi- Mapping out possibilities of a new critical paradigm.
vors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), Disability & Society, 36(9), 1532–1537. [Link]
881–912. [Link] 1080/09687599.2021.1919503
Oliver, D. P. (2011). Rigor in qualitative research. Research on Aging, Sumner, K. E., & Brown, T. J. (2015). Neurodiversity and human
33(4), 359–360. [Link] resource management: Employer challenges for applicants and
Wissell et al. 15

employees with learning disabilities. The Psychologist Manager Vender, M. (2017). Disentangling dyslexia: Phonological and
Journal, 18(2), 77–85. [Link] processing deficit in developmental dyslexia. Peter Lang
Swain, J., & French, S. (2000). Towards an affirmation model of GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften.
disability. Disability & Society, 15(4), 569–582. [Link] Werkhoven, S., Anderson, J. H., & Robeyns, I. A. M. (2022). Who
10.1080/09687590050058189 benefits from diagnostic labels for developmental disorders?
Taylor, L. M., Hume, I. R., & Welsh, N. (2010). Labelling and Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 64(8), 944–
self-esteem: The impact of using specific vs. Generic labels. 949. [Link]
Educational Psychology, 30(2), 191–202. [Link] West, T. G. (2020). In the mind’s eye: Creative visual thinkers, gifted
1080/01443410903494478 dyslexics, and the rise of visual technologies. Globe Pequot Press.
Thompson, G. A. (2014). Labeling in interactional practice: [Link]
Applying labeling theory to interactions and interactional ana- Willcutt, E. G., & Pennington, B. F. (2000). Psychiatric comorbid-
lysis to labeling: Labeling in interactional practice. Symbolic ity in children and adolescents with Reading disability. Journal
Interaction. [Link] of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(8), 1039–1048. https://
Threlkeld, A. D. (2015). Dyslexia as disability. ProQuest [Link]/10.1111/1469-7610.00691
Dissertations Publishing. Wilson, R. B., Thompson, A. R., Rowse, G., Smith, R., Dugdale,
Toth, C. (2014). Identity, small stories and interpretative reper- A.-S., & Freeth, M. (2023). Autistic women’s experiences of
toires in research interviews. An account of market researchers’ self-compassion after receiving their diagnosis in adulthood.
discursive positioning strategies. Journal of Comparative Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice,
Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 5(2), 153–173. 27(5), 1336–1347. [Link]
[Link] Wissell, S. (2023). Dyslexia—The hidden disability in the work-
Tregaskis, C. (2002). Social model theory: The story so far. place. La Trobe.
Disability & Society, 17(4), 457–470. [Link] Wissell, S., Karimi, L., & Serry, T. (2021). Adults with dyslexia:
09687590220140377 A snapshot of the demands on adulthood in Australia.
Urbanowicz, A., Nicolaidis, C., den Houting, J., Shore, S. M., Gaudion, Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 1–14. [Link]
K., Girdler, S., & Savarese, R. J. (2019). An expert discussion on org/10.1080/19404158.2021.1991965
strengths-based approaches in autism. Autism in Adulthood, 1(2), Wissell, S., Karimi, L., Serry, T., Furlong, L., & Hudson, J.
82–89. [Link] (2022). You don’t look dyslexic: Using the job demands-
Valeras, A. (2010). “We don’t have a box”: Understanding hidden resource model of burnout to explore employment experiences
disability identity utilizing narrative research methodology. of Australian adults with dyslexia. International Journal of
Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(3/4). [Link] Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 10719.
18061/dsq.v30i3/4.1267 [Link]
Venäläinen, S. (2021). Nobody cares for men anymore: Yang, L., Li, C., Li, X., Zhai, M., An, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., &
Affective-discursive practices around men’s victimisation Weng, X. (2022). Prevalence of developmental dyslexia in
across online and offline contexts. European Journal of primary school children: A systematic review and
Cultural Studies, 136754942110210. [Link] meta-analysis. Brain Sciences, 12(2), 240. [Link]
13675494211021097 3390/brainsci12020240