Language is constantly changing and evolving. For example, in psychology, terminology which was previously considered acceptable or appropriate (such as impairment, deficit) may now be seen as offensive or inappropriate. This context of perpetual change can make people feel defensive if they have their language corrected or criticised, because new terms may seem like a fad or a distraction. However, using inclusive language is about more than just avoiding a few outdated terms; it is about fostering a culture of respect, acceptance and understanding. As such, academics have a responsibility to think carefully about the language they use to communicate their research.

‘Using inclusive language is about more than just avoiding a few outdated terms; it is about fostering a culture of respect, acceptance and understanding.’

Publishing journal articles and presenting at academic and professional conferences provides opportunities for researchers to share their work and engage with communities who may be interested in, or directly benefit from, their field of study. However, it is essential that the language used during research dissemination does not pathologise, problematise or ‘other’ the communities we are working with (and sometimes are members of). For example, using the term ‘autism spectrum disorder’ may be clinically precise, but also highlights the normative view of autistic people as ‘disordered’ – which is unnecessary when the alternative of ‘autism’ is available. The language of disorder, and other examples, puts up barriers between us and the communities we are aiming to understand and support. As academics, we hold considerable power to shape current thinking and understanding; our use of language is taken to reflect our views and positions, and these views can either have a positive or negative influence on those at the centre of our research. It is essential, therefore that we, as academic researchers, continue to critically reflect on our language use, taking a neutral not negative approach when sharing our research.

A practical example relates to the language associated with neurodivergence. The concept of neurodiversity is used to describe natural variation in how people process information and experience the world (Fletcher-Watson, 2022). People whose neurotype overlaps with diagnostic categories such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, among others (including those meeting criteria for multiple diagnoses), may be described collectively as neurodivergent. While not every individual will self-identify as neurodivergent, the word does provide a value-neutral and non-medical way to refer to a large and diverse group of people who are often the focus of research. The neurodiversity paradigm represents a significant shift away from medicalised language around neurodivergent identities, which has historically focused on ‘deficits’ and ‘impairments’ that require ‘treatments’ to ‘fix’, reinforcing the idea that neurodivergent people and their experiences are ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ (Bottini et al., 2024). This language can reinforce stereotypes, undermine the real-life experiences and strengths of neurodivergent people, and perpetuate stigma (Gernsbacher, 2017).

When describing neurodivergent people, it is possible to use language which has the same level of accuracy and precision, but is neutral, rather than negative. For example, ‘symptoms’ can be replaced with ‘characteristics’ or ‘features’; ‘at risk’ can be replaced with ‘increased likelihood’; and ‘suffers with’ or ‘is impaired by’ can be replaced with descriptions of ‘challenges’ or ‘experiences’. Using language like ‘challenges’ instead of ‘impairments’ acknowledges difficulty without implying it is the defining feature of neurodivergent people’s lives. Notably, some critiques of the neurodiversity movement argue that it underrepresents the experiences of individuals who require higher levels of support. In this sense, acknowledging the specific experiences of individuals (rather than aggregating ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ across and within diagnostic categories) provides a means of advocating for all-inclusive acceptance of every neurological difference. These minor language adjustments can make a significant difference to neurodivergent people’s – and their allies’ – engagement with academic research, without compromising on the quality or accuracy of academic thinking or progress.

While changes can be made by individual researchers, journal editors and conference organisers should also encourage their research communities to think carefully about language use when writing articles, submitting abstracts and delivering talks. To embed this within research dissemination practices, it is essential to provide guidance or resources for authors around inclusive language use, and establishing review processes that foster inclusive language use is essential. Adopting a neutral not negative approach and encouraging academics to think carefully about their use of language should ultimately help foster a more positive, respectful and inclusive environment.

References

Bottini, S. B., Morton, H., Buchanan, K. A., &Gould, K. (2024). Moving from disorder to difference: A systematic review of recent language use in autism research. Autism in Adulthood, 6(2), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0030

Fletcher-Watson S. (2022). Transdiagnostic research and the neurodiversity paradigm: Commentary on the transdiagnostic revolution in neurodevelopmental disorders by Astle et al. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(4), 418–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13589

Gernsbacher, M. A. (2017). Editorial perspective: The use of person‐first language in scholarly writing may accentuate stigma. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(7), 859–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12706