Disclosure of Neurodivergence in Software Workplaces: a Mixed Methods Study of Forum and Survey Perspectives
Kaia Newman, Sarah Snay, Madeline Endres, Manasvi Parikh, Andrew Begel · 2025 · ASSETS 2025: 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663547.3746334
Summary
This paper presents a large-scale mixed-methods study examining how neurodivergent software developers navigate the decision to disclose their neurodivergence at work. The researchers combined qualitative analysis of 99 posts and their comments from r/ADHD_Programmers (the largest public online community for neurodivergent programmers, with 79,000+ members) with a worldwide survey of 493 software engineers across 58 countries (299 neurodivergent, 194 neurotypical). The study uses and extends the Joachim and Acorn framework for disclosure of invisible chronic conditions, adapting it to the software workplace context. The framework categorizes disclosure as planned (protective or preventative) or unplanned (spontaneous or informing), with outcomes ranging from support to stigma. The researchers found that the JA framework needed extension for their context — adding a cost-benefit decision model, distinguishing between stigma and discrimination as outcomes, identifying partial disclosure strategies, and incorporating the omnipresent influence of mental health on disclosure decisions. The study population included ADHD (n=140), autistic and ADHD (n=99), autistic (n=44), neurotypical (n=194), and other neurodivergent (n=16) developers, with both formally diagnosed and self-diagnosed individuals included to account for diagnostic access barriers.
Key findings
The study's most surprising finding was that social support — not accommodations — is the primary motivation for disclosure. Survey respondents disclosed most often for transparency (70%), empathy and understanding (56%), anti-discrimination values (53%), and solidarity (42%), while only 18% cited accommodations. This contradicts prior literature that frames disclosure primarily as an accommodation-seeking strategy. Disclosure outcomes were predominantly positive: 85% of ND survey respondents who disclosed reported positive or neutral outcomes, including positive interactions (68%), adjusted expectations (30%), and collaborative solutions (25%). Negative outcomes included stigma/discrimination (10%), job insecurity (5%), and extra labor from having to educate colleagues. The forum showed a significant negativity bias compared to the survey, with more negative experiences represented online — suggesting that online communities may skew disclosure perceptions negatively. Mental health was pervasive across the data: 54.8% of ND forum participants reported anxiety and 53.1% reported depression. Positive disclosure outcomes were linked to job satisfaction, which in turn related to better mental health, while stigma negatively affected mental health. Software-specific stressors like standup meetings and technical interviews were particularly challenging for ADHD and AuDHD developers. The paper proposes a comprehensive model of disclosure decisions and outcomes specific to software workplaces.
Relevance
This research is highly relevant for technology organizations seeking to create inclusive workplaces for neurodivergent employees. The finding that social support matters more than accommodations challenges the standard HR approach of treating disclosure purely as an accommodations pipeline. Organizations should foster cultures of transparency, understanding, and solidarity alongside formal accommodation processes. The negativity bias on online forums is an important finding for anyone using social media for disability-related guidance — the picture painted online may be more negative than reality. The proposed disclosure model provides a practical framework for understanding the complex factors that influence disclosure decisions, useful for HR professionals, managers, and neurodivergent employees themselves. The study's inclusion of self-diagnosed individuals and its attention to diagnostic access barriers models inclusive research practices. For technology designers, the paper suggests opportunities for tools that reduce disclosure-related extra labor, facilitate social support, detect negativity bias in online communities, and scaffold accommodation processes.
Tags: neurodiversity · disability disclosure · workplace accessibility · ADHD · autism · mental health · software engineering · mixed methods · stigma · masking