Conference Program

In the contemporary debate on neurodiversity (Singer, 2016; den Houting, 2019), neurocognitive differences are framed either as deficits requiring compensation or as expressions of inherent human variability, with distinct implications for educational planning (Chapman, 2023). Within this framework, this contribution reports findings from an exploratory study examining university students’ attitudes toward AI in educational interventions (Holmes, Bialik, & Fadel, 2019) for people with disabilities, using neurodiversity as an interpretative lens to analyse emerging conceptions.

The study was designed as an attitude survey using a direct technique and a pre-experimental design. Data were collected through a two-part questionnaire (35 open and closed questions), interspersed with a video stimulus illustrating the use of AI to support communication for people with profound and multiple intellectual disabilities (PIMD). Neurodiversity served as an analytical tool to distinguish deficit-oriented representations from those framing difference as human variability, while also revealing tensions within this distinction (Clouder et al., 2020; OECD, 2017, Quigley & Gallagher, 2025; Ellis, Kirby, & Osborne, 2025).

The sample included 342 Education Sciences students at the University of Ferrara, predominantly female (95.3%), with over half already working in educational settings. Data were analysed through qualitative thematic analysis, following a recursive deductive–inductive process aligned with the reflexive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2021) and supported by MAXQDA.

Results indicate a favourable stance toward AI as a tool to enhance communication, personalisation, and inclusion. Students emphasised the educational relationship and empathy, alongside ethical concerns such as privacy, technological dependence, and replacement of human roles. However, interpreted through neurodiversity, responses reveal a predominantly assistive-compensatory configuration. Neurocognitive difference is represented as a condition requiring support rather than as natural variability or an epistemic resource reshaping educational contexts.

This outcome must be considered in relation to the empirical device adopted. The video presented an extreme case of PIMD, eliciting representations centred on support needs and testing the applicability of neurodiversity in situations of severely compromised functioning. The study thus exposes a theoretical tension concerning the extent to which neurodiversity can operate as an interpretative framework in such contexts without obscuring the dimension of need (Jaarsma & Welin, 2012).

This tension frames how far the findings align with a transformative understanding of neurodiversity. Compatibility appears uneven: while value-based elements (rights, dignity, equal opportunities) are well established, ontological and epistemological dimensions remain limited. Conceptions prioritise individual adaptation over contextual reconfiguration. The video stimulus produced an emotional-legitimising effect, reinforcing openness to AI without substantial conceptual restructuring.

These findings are discussed in light of tensions within neurodiversity and in relation to proposals for a pedagogy of neurodiversity (Cadavero & Salerni, 2022; Cadavero et al., 2024). The study highlights the need to equip future educators with theoretical tools to distinguish compensatory from transformative approaches. Interpretative caution is required: direct techniques may encourage socially desirable responses; the pre-experimental design limits causal inference; and the analysis remains interpretative. Overall, while students show a strong ethical commitment to inclusion, further theoretical development is needed to critically integrate neurodiversity into debates on technology and education.