Study: Traditional Scientific Workplaces Don’t Meet Needs of Neurodivergent Employees

Conceptual rendering of a neuroinclusive lab with access to natural light, ergonomic furniture, work choice settings and biophilic design elements. All images: HOK

Gary Clark, Regional Leader of Science + Technology in HOK’s London studio, is co-author of this piece.

It has been theorized that the analytical and often independent nature of scientific and research work caters to people who identify as neurodivergent. But what percentage of scientific workers are truly neurodivergent? And what type of scientific workspaces would best cater to their needs?

Those questions formed the heart of a study HOK conducted this year with University of the West of Scotland (UWS) and Advanced Research Clusters (ARC), a development firm that supports over 300 science and tech organizations throughout Europe.  

The study began with a survey of ARC members from across Europe and concluded with an in-person design workshop comprised of people who work in lab and science spaces. The data and feedback collected was eye-popping even for those of us who have researched and practiced neuroinclusive design for years.

Survey says

Among the general population, one in five people (roughly 20 percent) are estimated to have some form of neurodivergence, such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and/or other sensory processing disorders. Our survey found those numbers are far greater when it comes to people employed in the science and research field.

Of the 241 lab and scientific workplace employees who completed our online survey, 48 percent identified as neurodivergent. That’s 2.4 times higher than the estimate for the general population.

When we look at neurotypes in various age groups, the data showed that 71 percent of participants 60 years of age or older identified as neurotypical. Yet among the 20-29 age group, only 17 percent of respondents identified as being neurotypical. That is a significant variance, which could be attributed to an increased awareness among younger generations, an increase in diagnosis and perhaps that the STEM sector attracts a higher percentage of neurodivergent individuals.

Even more shocking was the number of people in our survey who reported having autism. A quarter (25.5 percent) of survey respondents identified as autistic, a number that is 25 times greater than the general UK average of 1 percent.

Results from a survey question on different environmental stimuli within the workplace.

The survey also asked people their thoughts on different environmental stimuli within the workplace. Here, again, the survey revealed interesting results. While responses varied from one workplace stimuli to another, respondents across neurotypes had similar negative responses to stimuli that can cause discomfort or distractions, such as sound, sight, smell and temperature within the workplace.

Those who identified as neurodivergent generally had a higher sensitivity to all stimuli. However, the correspondence between neurodivergent and neurotypical respondents (as well as those who were unsure of their neurotype), suggests that design considerations that address the sensory needs of neurodivergent employees would benefit all employees.

So, what might a “neuroinclusive” scientific workplace look like? That question formed the basis of our next phase of research, a design workshop intended to establish a set of design principles based on the survey results.

Workshopping a better workplace

Eleven people participated in our workshop held at the ARC campus in Oxford, England. Four participants identified as neurotypical, four as neurodivergent, and three were unsure of their neurotype. Two UWS environmental psychologists helped facilitate the workshop, which included activities that asked participants to rate and discuss images depicting different workplace environments. A final exercise had participants work together to arrange their ideal lab and workplace.

Responses to the workshop activities supported our survey findings. Participants who identified as neurodivergent often had a more visceral reaction to visuals showing or suggesting loud, bright or overly sterile environments. But they were not alone. The neurotypical participants and those without a strong neurotype often shared similar feelings, just not quite as strong.

Overall, participants expressed a desire for more choice within the workplace, allowing them the freedom to find the right environmental setting that supports their needs and workstyles and also spaces for focus, socializing and restoration. Other wishes for labs, write-up areas and associated spaces included: ergonomic furniture, varying levels of visual/audio stimulation and the inclusion of biophilic elements such as natural materials, access to natural light and outside views. Universally, participants expressed a desire to provide suggestions about the layout and design of their workspace.

Armed with the findings from the survey and the workshop, we created a list of eight ways labs and research facilities could improve on today’s traditional scientific workplace:

Next steps

Our study supports the notion that neurodivergent individuals make up a sizable portion of the research and scientific community.

Whether or not that portion is as great as our survey indicated—with nearly half identifying as neurodivergent—requires further study. It could be that people who identified as neurodivergent felt more compelled to take our survey than those who are neurotypical or unsure of their neurotype.

Our survey also found stark differences between how men, women and nonbinary participants respond to stimuli and to what degree. This is of note as most of the research to date on neurodivergence has focused on adolescent males. There is limited research on traditionally marginalized populations. More studies are needed to truly understand the significance of the variances and needs of different groups and individuals.

What is clear from our study is that scientific employees, regardless of their neurotype, share similar views of workplace distractions and similar ideas of how those same workplaces could be made better. This supports another theory we had entering our study—neuroinclusive design isn’t about making spaces better just for those who are neurodivergent. It’s about designing better spaces for all.

Download the full report, Designing Neuroinclusive Laboratory Environments.

Gary Clark, co-author of this piece, is the Regional Leader of Science + Technology in HOK’s London studio. He has more than 30 years of experience designing science and lab spaces with a focus on collaboration, engagement, and sustainability.