Susan Flynn
9 min
Social work theoretically operates under a mandate of social justice, empowerment, and respect for diversity. However, this paper explores the growing tension between these foundational values and the realities of modern, state-sanctioned social work. The author examines how the profession's neoliberal, bureaucratized environment hinders its ability to integrate the principles of the neurodiversity movement, ultimately leaving neurodivergent service users underserved.
The author argues that the social work profession has become increasingly distanced from its core ideology. Under neoliberal conditions, social workers are tasked with managing state-defined risks through restrictive, procedural, and micro-level casework. This professional environment emphasizes conformity to dominant cultural norms, which is fundamentally incompatible with the neurodiversity movement’s call for celebrating neurological variance. Because social workers are forced to focus on managing urgent cases within existing rigid frameworks, they lack the institutional support and time required to engage in the macro-level policy advocacy necessary for systemic neuro-inclusion.
This misalignment has tangible, negative consequences. The paper highlights how a lack of specialized neurodiversity training can lead to wrongful assessments—such as misinterpreting an autistic child's presentation as a lack of parental attachment. Without a neuro-affirming lens, the profession often defaults to normalizing standards that punish or exclude neurodivergent behaviors. The paper notes that both service users and social workers who identify as neurodivergent are negatively impacted, as the current structure offers little flexibility for those who diverge from standard neurocognitive expectations.
The author proposes that the profession must commit to a process of reclamation to restore its original social justice mandate. This includes recognizing the internal policing of neurodivergent social workers, advocating for systemic legislative change to support neuro-accessible justice, and fostering a culture of "connections over compliance." By shifting from a deficit-based medical model to a rights-based approach, social work can better align itself with the diverse realities of the human brain.
Neurodiversity is concerned with the spectrum of differences in human minds. Owing to the neurodiversity movement, from the 1980s onwards, social work has been challenged to reconcile its traditional social justice mandate, with ever-increasing sociopolitical attention to neurodiversity inclusion. If “respect for diversities”, as inscribed in the International Federation of Social Workers’ global definition of social work, is anything to go by, the challenge of reconciliation between social work and the neurodiversity movement, should never have been too great. Even so, it is argued that social work has of late been at odds with the ideological doctrine of making wider social justice change happen in societies. Specifically, it is argued that this constrains social work’s capacity to promote the will and preference of neurodivergent populations. Toward a more socially just approach in social work, key lessons and pathways forward are set out regarding neurodiversity inclusion and equality as a complex and pressing matter.
Sam: Does that mean replacing medical descriptions with a social explanation settles the problem?
Alex: Flynn doesn’t present either tradition as beyond criticism. Diagnostic labels can be comforting and useful for some people. She also discusses criticisms that neurodiversity activism can exclude people, cannot speak for everyone, and may emphasise politics and language without resolving practical difficulties.
Sam: So acceptance is a commitment, not evidence that everyone has the same needs. How does Flynn connect that commitment to the way services operate?
Alex: Through a distinction between helping individuals and changing systems. She calls the latter macro-level practice: changing laws, policies, and social structures. If practitioners lack time or freedom for that work, they may be left helping people fit an unjust system rather than improving it.
Sam: The article calls those conditions neoliberal. What does that mean in the actual working day?
Alex: In this argument, it means pressurised work with restrictive procedures, individual casework, and priority given to high-risk situations. Flynn’s concern is that this crowds out training, early support, and wider advocacy. She explicitly recognises that practitioners still do valuable work within those constraints.
Sam: That could affect many service users. What makes the consequences particular to neurodivergent people?
Alex: Flynn argues that the system already favours neurotypical expectations: the ways of thinking and behaving treated as standard. Without specialist understanding or flexibility, assessments may mistake difference for a problem. Limited time to question those assumptions can therefore have unequal consequences.
Sam: Let’s return to the child who avoids cuddling. What precisely could go wrong in that assessment?
Alex: Flynn asks us to imagine a worker observing a mother and child. The child doesn’t seek closeness or want to be held. The worker might interpret that as evidence that an attachment bond isn’t developing. But the presentation could be explained by the child being autistic, leaving a loving parent wrongly blamed.
Sam: That illustrates a plausible mistake. Does the article show how often workers make it, or compare assessments with and without specialist training?
Alex: Not in the excerpt. This is an illustrative scenario, not a reported assessment study. Flynn cites research showing different child-protection intervention patterns for children labelled with disability, including greater likelihood of removal and longer periods away. But those broader findings don’t measure this particular mistake or establish its frequency among autistic children.
Sam: Then the argument has a clear mechanism, but not a measured effect size. What would Flynn change in response?
Alex: She proposes inclusive assessment guidelines and neuro-affirming practice: approaches that respect neurological differences rather than demand conformity. Workers could also ask whether services provide equality between neurodivergent children and their peers. Wider advocacy would support children’s own voices in policy, rather than relying mainly on parent-centred accounts.
Sam: Guidelines still need time to use. Does she offer an example where pressure to manage immediate risk could undermine prevention?
Alex: She describes a foster placement with relationship difficulties. Bespoke early support, using an approach called “connections over compliance,” could help carers respond to a neurodivergent child’s needs. Her concern is that workers lack capacity until the placement reaches crisis. Again, this illustrates a proposed pathway; it isn’t an evaluated intervention here.
Sam: The same pressure could exclude workers as well as families. Does the article treat neurodivergent social workers as part of the issue?
Alex: Yes, and that is central to its recommendations. Flynn asks whether expectations about how workers look, speak, think, and behave police difference inside the profession. She highlights scant scholarship on neurodivergent social workers, alongside existing accounts of exhausting misunderstanding at work.
Sam: What would inclusion mean beyond simply asking colleagues to be more understanding?
Alex: More flexibility in working practices, and more options for service users to meet agency requirements. Flynn groups her recommendations around policing difference, employment challenges, lost creativity, and normalising standards. She also acknowledges that statutory services need common rules across diverse populations. Recognising that tension doesn’t make its unequal consequences disappear.
Sam: What should a researcher trust here, and what would still need testing?
Alex: I’d treat it as a conceptual synthesis and research agenda. It connects professional commitments, existing critiques, and concrete practice risks. The excerpt provides no new quantitative sample or intervention comparison. It therefore cannot tell us how widespread these mechanisms are, or whether the proposed changes improve outcomes.
Sam: With that boundary in mind, who should read the full article, and where should they begin?
Alex: Researchers and educators in social work, child protection, disability, and workplace inclusion should read it. Start with “Review of Neurodiversity and Social Work: Lessons for the Future,” especially its discussion of flexibility and normalising standards. Then examine the family-assessment example: it makes the proposed link between institutional constraints and unequal treatment concrete.
Sam: And what should everyone else take away, even if they don’t work in these services?
Alex: A profession can promise respect for difference while organising its work around conformity. Flynn’s challenge is to examine both the decisions workers make and the systems that constrain them. Remember this: inclusion means questioning the rules people must fit, not only helping people fit the rules.
Sam: Thanks for listening.