Neurodiversity in Organizations: Beyond the Basic Accommodation Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurodiversity inclusion is no longer a new topic in business, yet it continues to be understudied at macro, meso, and micro levels of the organization. This symposium consists of five short presentations, each investigating a different aspect of neurodiversity in organizations across these levels. Nittrouer, Blake, and Lux start at the macro level, looking at the relationship between DEI statements (as they relate to neurodiversity and multiculturalism), five organizational outcomes/traits, and the marginalized identities of DEI officers. Next, Cameron and Austin discuss the cross-level impact of diversity, employee support systems, and structured conflict management systems on the intragroup conflict process in organizations by drawing on data from neurodiversity employment initiatives. Third, Doyle investigates the cross-level impact of coaching on dimensions of executive functioning and self-efficacy in neurominority participants in the context of reasonable accommodations at work. Fourth, Grabarski and Baker present a primarily micro-level study on how perceptions of neurodiversity inclusion impact individuals in terms of affective commitment and turnover intention. Finally, Spoor and Jameson overview the implications of neuro-inclusion for business schools and discuss practical implications for teaching, research, and administration across the business school as a call to action. A group discussion will be led by Johnson, touching on research comments, theoretical and practical implications. DE&I Officers and DE&I Statements Author: Christine Nittrouer; Texas Tech U. Author: Sean Lux; Texas Tech U. Author: Andrew Blake; Texas Tech U. Organizational Emotional Intelligence in Diversity Management Author: Chloe R. Cameron; Ivey Business School Author: Robert Austin; Ivey Business School Coaching as an Accommodation for Neurodivergent Employees Author: Nancy Doyle; Birkbeck U. of London Exploration of Neurodiversity Perceptions in Australian Retail Author: Mirit K. Grabarski; Lakehead U. Author: Marzena Baker; U. Of Sydney Supporting Neurodiversity in Organizations: The Role of Business Schools Author: Jennifer R. Spoor; La Trobe U. Author: Tiffany Payton Jameson; -
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".