Literature Review

📚 Literature Review: Major Themes and Gaps

The literature informing this study spans multiple intersecting domains, including disability studies, inclusive education, higher education policy, student development theory, and neurodiversity frameworks. The following thematic areas provide the conceptual foundation for the research design and analysis. At the same time, several key gaps in the literature point to the necessity and relevance of the proposed study.

Major Themes : Neurodiversity and Identity-Affirming Frameworks

Scholars have increasingly called for a shift from deficit-based models of disability to identity-affirming frameworks that recognize neurodivergent ways of thinking and learning as natural variations of human cognition (Walker, 2021; Singer, 1998). This reframing is essential to building inclusive educational environments and guiding staff practices that emphasize belonging rather than remediation.

 Postsecondary Disability Services

Most institutions rely on disability support offices to implement accommodations, but literature reveals a lack of consistency across campuses in how these services are designed and resourced (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017; U.S. Department of Education, 2020). Many existing studies focus on legal compliance rather than on the lived experiences of students or the role of staff in fostering inclusion beyond the classroom.

 Student Belonging, Persistence, and Success

A growing body of research connects student sense of belonging with academic persistence and mental health outcomes (Strayhorn, 2012; Vaccaro & Newman, 2016). For neurodivergent students, feelings of alienation or stigma can hinder success—making the institutional climate and support structures critical to retention.

 Staff as Agents of Inclusion

Support professionals—academic coaches, advisors, disability coordinators—are often gatekeepers to services, yet their perspectives are underrepresented in research. Studies examining staff roles suggest that their training, institutional backing, and autonomy significantly affect outcomes for the students they serve (García & Guerra, 2004; Lombardi et al., 2011).

Gaps in the Literature

Limited research on how staff define and evaluate “inclusive practices” for neurodivergent students.
 

Few studies include staff perspectives from multiple institutional types (e.g., 2-year colleges, PWIs, minority-serving institutions).
 

Lack of qualitative data examining real-world barriers and facilitators to inclusive service delivery.
 

Existing work underrepresents the intersectionality of neurodivergence with race, class, and gender in postsecondary support contexts.