Submission Deadline: 30 November 2025

Submission window for Special Research Spotlight: 1–30 November 2025

---

Guest Editors

• Dusya Vera, Ivey Business School (AMD Associate Editor)
• Hala Annabi, University of Washington
• Robert D. Austin, Ivey Business School
• Timothy J. Vogus, Vanderbilt University

Overview

The past two decades have seen the emergence and spread of activities that recognize and support neurodiversity in organizations. A primary focus has been on hiring and employment initiatives designed to remove barriers to employment for the roughly 20% of the global population (Doyle & McDowall, 2021) considered neurodivergent (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia). Historically, neuro-differences have been viewed through the prism of the “medical model of disability” as deficit, pathology, and weakness, as well as departures from population norms that need to be redressed or eliminated through intervention (Nelson, 2021; Doyle, 2020; Fisher & Goodley, 2007). Unsurprisingly, given the prevalence of this view, research suggests disproportionately high under- or unemployment rates among neurodivergent people (Ameri et al., 2018; Roux et al., 2013; Taylor & Seltzer, 2011; Krzeminska et al., 2019; Doyle, 2020). Despite significant barriers, many neurodistinct  people have great interest in employment and possess employment-relevant strengths including average or above abilities and skills, some in high demand but scarce in the job market (Doyle, 2020).

The late 1990s saw increasing calls for framing neurodivergence and associated conditions in terms of difference rather than pathology and refocusing based on strengths rather than weaknesses (Singer, 1997; Kapp et al., 2013; Bruyère and Barrington, 2012). That is, there has been an embrace of neurodiversity based on the conclusion that there is natural variation in neurocognition in human minds inclusive of neurodivergence. Building on the “social model of disability” (Oliver, 1990), proponents of a growing neurodiversity movement have advocated the view that organizational and societal conditions, rather than individual deficits (weaknesses), have been responsible for the high under- and unemployment rates of neurodistinct individuals. These proponents also have argued that organizations and social institutions should take responsibility for addressing the barriers inherent in existing ableist systems that preclude neurodistinct people from employment. Prominent business organizations, such as Ernst & Young (EY), JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, SAP, and others have responded by developing targeted hiring and employment approaches that attempt to redesign hiring practices and workplace conditions with a focus on being more inclusive of neurodiversity. These initiatives have deployed alternative recruiting, skills assessment, onboarding, on-the-job support, career management, and other processes (Khan et al., 2023; Annabi et al., 2021) to minimize biases that historically have prevented many neurominorities from accessing and working effectively in organizations (Austin & Pisano, 2017). Ultimately, the collective effort of neurodiversity employment initiatives morphed into a campaign known as the Neurodiversity@Work movement.

The employers involved in the movement estimate that their neuro-inclusion activities have led to more than 15,000 jobs newly accessible to neurodistinct candidates since 2004 (Austin et al., forthcoming). Although the focus of much practical activity is on improving employment access and outcomes for neurodistinct people in specific firms, the high incidence of neurodivergent conditions in the population makes it certain that neurodistinct people are already present in all organizations (LeFevre-Levy et al. 2023), though many are likely “masking” (Kidwell et al., 2023), i.e., using cognitive or behavioral strategies to hide their neurodistinct traits from neurotypicals thereby conforming to conventions of neurotypical social behavior (Barkley, 2010; Sedgewick et al., 2021). The implications of masking on the well-being of these employees, the organization’s effectiveness, and other outcomes are poorly understood. Adopting neuro-inclusive approaches have led neurodistinct employees, who may have been masking or camouflaging indicators of being neurodistinct, to come forward and disclose their neurodistinct conditions and organize into networks within firms, but the effects are not entirely known (Austin, et al., forthcoming). Moreover, despite these very significant developments, theorizing about neurodiversity within organizations has badly lagged practice. How neurodiversity manifests within management and organizations remains ripe for discovery (LeFevre-Levy, et al., 2023). There is, of course, an established and evolving tradition of general DEI research (see Roberson, 2019 for a review), but the degree to which that body of work is relevant to neurodiversity and neuro-inclusion is also unclear. Indeed, much of what is written about neurodiversity in employment is spread across many academic disciplines and, with a few exceptions (e.g., Drader-Mazza et al., 2024; Ezerins et al, 2024; Krzeminska et al., 2019; Johnson & Joshi, 2016), work on this topic has been largely absent from management journals (LeFevre-Levy et al. 2023).

[1] We use the word “neuorodistinct” to describe people, rather than more common alternatives, such as “neurodivergent” or “neuroatypical,” because distinctness implies difference without reference to a supposedly preferred status of “normal” or “typical.”

Neurodiversity Frontiers in Management and Organizations

Neurodistinct people face unique barriers to obtaining and sustaining employment, in part because neurodivergence is invisible, leading to misunderstandings and skepticism in a society that primarily recognizes visible markers of disability (Davis, 2005). In addition, neurodivergence is linked to fundamental differences in cognitive and sensory processing, as well as in social interaction. These differences may be present in ways that are especially challenging in an employment context where there are strong norms regarding social interaction and communication styles (both verbal and nonverbal), as well as general behaviors. Interviewers, workplace peers, or managers have characterized the interaction styles of neurodistinct (e.g., autistic) employees as “overly blunt,” lacking empathy and expected emotional expression, and even “weird” (Treweek et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2023), without acknowledging or even recognizing that this reflects neurotypical expectations and bias. This bias suggests the need for novel approaches that more fundamentally engage with and reflect rethinking of neurotypical norms. Like people identified with other marginalized groups, neurodistinct people can become stigmatized (Bos et al., 2013). These realities necessitate exploratory empirical work to more precisely identify the range and form of the biases and their consequences for individuals and organizations. In addition, there is a need to explore interventions that can surmount these biases across a range of domains, including but not limited to hiring and selection, onboarding and socialization, ongoing inclusion, performance management, and work design (see also Annabi & Locke, 2019). It also would be useful to see which, if any, existing approaches to debiasing organizational processes help to make organizations more neuro-inclusive (e.g., Goldin & Rouse, 2000). We elaborate on three themes we see as especially promising for exploring the macro, meso, and micro processes related to neurodiversity in the workplace.

1. The social context of neurodiversity. Neurodiversity in the workplace exists within the broader context of policy, practice, and research regarding disability and work. This coexistence is not without tension, as the neurodiversity movement is grounded in the idea that neurodivergence is a natural and valuable form of difference that should not be automatically considered a deficit. As such, the neurodiversity movement primarily focuses on the social conditions that are disabling. In contrast, other approaches to neurodiversity and disability take a more medical, individual intervention, accommodative, and even curative approach. Exploration is needed to see how these different currents in neurodiversity and disability advocacy shape policy, organizational programs and policies, and individual experiences at work. It is also worth exploring how different employee identities (e.g., solely neurodistinct, neurodistinct and disabled), as well as other intersectional identities (e.g., neurodistinct and gender, racial, cultural, and sexual orientation) affect employee expectations and experiences (e.g., attitudes, turnover). The connection to the neurodiversity movement and community and its effects on employee experience are other topics worthy of further empirical investigation (e.g., Botha et al., 2022).
2. The challenges of the “business case” for neurodiversity. Recent discussions of neurodiversity have emphasized the benefits for organizations in terms of firm competitiveness and innovation (Austin & Pisano, 2017). Most major companies with established neurodiversity hiring initiatives (e.g., EY) insist that business justifications are at the heart of their efforts (Austin et al., forthcoming). However, to date, these claims rely on anecdotes of reputation advantages (Pisano & Austin, 2016a), employee engagement and commitment (Pisano & Austin, 2016b), and making the analogical connections between specific traits broadly associated with neurodistinct people (e.g., pattern recognition, attention to detail, ability to make novel connections) and innovation (Jeppeson & Lakhani, 2010). However, we need exploratory research to assess the existence of benefits (i.e., the “business case”) across multiple indicators of benefit (both organizational and employee related) and the conditions under which they are more likely to emerge. There is also a tension between the “business case” and social case for neuro-inclusive organizations. How organizations navigate these tensions and the strategies and practices they use for balancing them merit qualitative and quantitative investigation. How logics are articulated to best foster increasing neurodiversity and neuro-inclusion, as well as which logics best enhance employee and organizational outcomes, are also important topics for exploration and theory development.
3. Balancing standardization and customization approaches to neurodiversity. 
   Another unique feature of neurodiversity is its heterogeneity across neurodistinct conditions (e.g., autism, ADHD, dyslexia), as well as varied expressions within each condition (e.g., among individuals on the autism spectrum). Stated differently, autism advocates, for example, are inclined to argue that “if you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met ONE person with autism.” The point they are making is that autism is a broad umbrella, and that the spectrum of manifestations under it exhibits tremendous heterogeneity. This is further exacerbated when intersecting with other historically marginalized and excluded identities (e.g., race, gender, socioeconomic status, age). This creates a substantial challenge for organizations in developing scalable approaches to neuro-inclusion while ensuring individual employees get what they need to thrive. We need research focused on discoveries related to how organizations, their leaders, and employees engage with these tensions—i.e., the practices and processes they use, how they operate, and the extent to which they yield organizational, team, and individual effectiveness.  

For all the above reasons, and more, we believe neurodiversity in management and organizations is deserving of empirical exploration on its own terms. It is clearly a nascent field that can benefit from a discovery-based approach that examines the rich yet underexplored phenomena detailed above and elaborated below. This is the reason for this AMD Spotlight.

Goals of the AMD Spotlight

The goals of this Spotlight are to publish novel empirical explorations that move this nascent field toward more developed theorizing. These empirical explorations might be specifically focused on neurodiversity or might leverage the distinct character of neurodiversity to explore more general diversity or other organizational issues. We aspire to attract work that takes seriously both the charge to develop a richly contextualized understanding of a key empirical discovery and develop its implications for a more generalized understanding of work, strategy, organizations, management, and institutions.

We see these as complementary goals—recognizing that generalizability is enhanced, rather than harmed, by careful attention to contextualizing research (Johns, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001) —and the goals seem particularly well-suited to the nature of AMD as an outlet for “articles motivated by research questions that address compelling and underexplored phenomena … that present clear and compelling discoveries: empirical findings that challenge existing assumptions while opening new theoretical paths or that otherwise promote future, ‘down-the-road,’ theorizing” (AMD website). We also encourage submissions that involve and engage practitioners in the development and presentation of discoveries (for more, see the recent AMD “From the Editors” essay on practitioner involvement in empirical research; Ben-Menahem, 2024).

Sample Topics

We provide below a non-exhaustive list of topic areas that might be appropriate for this Spotlight on neurodiversity. It is not our intention in creating this list, however, to constrain the ways in which authors might explore this nascent area of management and organizational research. As Doyle and McDowall (2021) have noted in their recent review of the literature, management research on neurodiversity remains largely “empty.” We welcome submissions from a broad range of conceptual traditions, methods, and domains. Moreover, most of the topics below are subject to empirical exploration across different stakeholders, such as neurodistinct employees, neurodistinct leaders, neurotypical leaders leading a neurodiverse workforce, pertinent organizations, and actors in the policy (e.g., legal, governmental) or societal context of organizations. Questions about the suitability of a particular topic should be directed to a member of the Guest Editor team.

Some suggested areas that authors might address include the following:

• Workplace relationships between neurodistinct and neurotypical people. What characterizes these relationships (e.g., content, strength)? What are the conditions under which they emerge (e.g., workplace practices)? How do increasing levels of neurodiversity in organizations affect workplace relationships and relational norms?
• The career journeys and trajectories of neurodistinct employees. How do neurodistinct employees (successfully) navigate careers?
• Related to the prior question, what are the attributes, backgrounds, characteristics and leaderships approaches/styles of neurodistinct leaders (i.e., how do they lead)? Under what conditions do neurodistinct leaders emerge (e.g., in new sectors or specific industrial sectors) and which organizational practices foster neurodistinct leadership?
• How do organizations founded or led by neurodistinct individuals differ?
• What role does technology (including AI) play in effectively cultivating and supporting a neurodiverse workforce? What are the attributes of effective technology tools? Under what conditions are they effective?
• What role do third parties (e.g., job coaches, employment support organizations, governmental support programs like vocational rehabilitation) play in increasing workplace neurodiversity and neuroinclusion? How do they do so effectively?
• How can human resource practices (workplace design, performance appraisal, interviewing, onboarding/socialization, compensation) effectively cultivate and support workplace neurodiversity? Which practices are especially critical?
• How are character, competence, and commitment developed and assessed in neurodistinct employees?
• How does organizational culture shape the levels of neurodiversity in organizations and the experiences of neurodistinct employees?
• What organizational factors (e.g., executive support, industry context, employee culture) are most critical to foster neuroinclusion? Which of these are most critical to scaling neurodiversity initiatives?
• What is the relationship between neurodiversity and creativity in teams? Innovation in and by organizations? What processes (e.g., conflict, communication) foster creativity and innovation in neurodistinct teams?
• What role does mental health play in neurodiversity and employment? What role should employers play in providing mental health support and how do they do so effectively? How do macro factors (governmental policy, social movements, supportive educational and non-profit sector) affect the extent and effectiveness (scope and sustainability) of work outcomes for neurodistinct people?   
• What evidence is there for the “business case” for neurodiversity? Under what conditions are the business benefits most likely to occur? What is uniquely challenging in making the business case for neurodiversity? 
• How do organizations engage in mass customization in terms of support for the range of neurodiversity in their organizations?
• What differentiates leaders who are effective at leading neurodiverse teams? What are the range of methods (e.g., training and coaching) used for building the capacity of managers to lead neurodiverse teams? How effective are these methods and under what circumstances?

About AMD

AMD is a premier journal for the empirical exploration of data describing or investigating compelling phenomena. AMD is not a journal for deductive theorizing or hypothesis testing. Authors are encouraged to present findings without the need to “reverse engineer” any theoretical framework or hypotheses. AMD publishes discoveries resulting from both quantitative and qualitative data sources. AMD articles are phenomenon-forward rather than theory-forward. This means that AMD papers look quite different in comparison to articles sent to other empirical journals. The goal at the front end of an AMD paper should primarily be to demonstrate the novelty/interestingness of the phenomenon and why current theory fails to explain it. The discussion section of an AMD paper is where a plausible theoretical explanation—the theoretical contribution—is provided. The goal for every AMD paper is for discoveries derived from empirical exploration to open new lines of research inquiry. For further information about the goals of AMD, we encourage potential submitters to review recent “From-the-Editors” essays (Miller, 2024; Rockmann, 2023) and to visit the AMD website.

Submission Guidelines

When submitting your manuscript, for “Manuscript Type,” please select Special Research Spotlight: Neurodiversity in Management and Organizations. (Please note: this Manuscript Type will not be available to authors until November 2025.) Manuscripts should be formatted according to the AOM Style Guide.

Spotlights are a new publishing venue at AMD: mini research forums that feature studies of complex and poorly understood phenomena (e.g., new science, technology, human resource strategies) with potentially path-breaking implications for management and organizations. Each issue features a Guidepost essay by a prominent scholar or team of scholars along with one to three select articles that highlight empirical discoveries with the potential to shape the evolution of theory on the focal phenomenon and related managerial and organizational challenges. Spotlights work on an accelerated review cycle, with a submission deadline 7-9 months after the Call for Papers, and target publication dates 12-15 months following the Call. Spotlights continue to grow, as related content is tagged in subsequent issues, creating ongoing, distributed conversations.

Standard guidelines apply to papers submitted for this Spotlight. Manuscripts may be submitted as regular papers or as Discoveries-through-Prose. Discoveries-through-Prose are crafted in more creative and engaging ways than traditional papers. When composing such manuscripts, we encourage authors to relax their use of traditional headings and traditional “academic writing” in order to create a compelling narrative from start to finish. More information about Discoveries-through-Prose can be found on the AMD website.

References

• Ameri, M., Schur, L., Adya, M., Bentley, F. S., McKay, P., & Kruse, D. (2018). The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior. ILR Review, 71(2), 329–364.
• Annabi, H., & Locke, J. (2019). A theoretical framework for investigating the context for creating employment success in information technology for individuals with autism. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(4), 499–515. 
• Annabi, H., Crooks, E. W., Barnett, N., Guadagno, J., Mahoney, J. R., Michelle, J., Velasco, J. (2021). Neurodiversity @ Work Playbook: Finding talent and creating meaningful employment opportunities for people with autism. 2^nd edition, Seattle: ACCESS-IT.
• Austin, R. D., Barnett, N., Cameron, C. R., Shukla, H., Sonne, T., Velasco, (forthcoming), J. How Neuro-Inclusion Builds Organizational Capabilities, MIT Sloan Management Review.
• Austin, R. D., & Busquets, J. (2008). Managing differences. Innovations, 3(1), 28-35.
• Austin, R. D. & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business Review, May-June.
• Barkley, R. A. (2010). Deficient emotional self-regulation: A core component of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of ADHD and Related Disorders, 1(1), 5-37.
• Ben-Menahem, S. M. (2024). Engaging Practitioners in Empirical Exploration. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(2), 155-162.
• Botha, M., Dibb, B., & Frost, D. M. (2022). ‘It’s being a part of a grand tradition, a grand counter-culture which involves communities’: A qualitative investigation of autistic community connectedness. Autism, 26(8), 2151-2164.
• Boucher, J. (2009). The Autistic Spectrum. Characteristics, Causes, and Practical Issues. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
• Bos, A. E., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and applied social psychology, 35(1), 1-9.
• Bruyere, S. & Barrington, L. (2012). Employment and work. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Reference.
• Colella, A., & Bruyère, S.  (2011). Disability and employment: New directions for industrial/organizational psychology. In American Psychological Association Handbook on Industrial Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1. (pp. 473-503).  Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
• Crocker, A. F., & Smith, S. N. (2019). Person-first language: Are we practicing what we preach? Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 125-129.
• Davis, N. A. (2005). Invisible disability. Ethics, 116(1), 153-213.
• Doyle, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135(1), 108-125.
• Doyle, N., & McDowall, A. (2021). Diamond in the rough? An “empty review” of research into “neurodiversity” and a road map for developing the inclusion agenda. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 41(3), 352-382.
• Drader‐Mazza, N., Lopez‐Kidwell, V., Kanwal, F., Reger, R. K., & Vogus, T. J. (2024). The Double Empathy Problem and Person‐Environment Fit: Mutual Understanding and Bidirectional Adjustment in Autistic Talent Acquisition. Human Resource Management.
• Ezerins, M. E., Simon, L. S., Vogus, T. J., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., & Rosen, C. C. (2024). Autism and employment: A review of the “new frontier” of diversity research. Journal of Management, 50(3), 1102-1144.
• Fisher, P., & Goodley, D. (2007). The linear medical model of disability: Mothers of disabled children critically rethink experiences of professional care. Social Science & Medicine, 64(5), 1169-1181.
• Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities. (2022). Geneva: World Health Organization.
• Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4), 715-741.
• Hedley, D., Uljarević, M., & Hedley, D. F. E. (2017). Employment and living with Autism: Personal, social and economic impact. In S. Halder & L. C. Assaf (Eds.), Inclusion, Disability and Culture: An Ethnographic Perspective Traversing Abilities and Challenges. New York: Springer.
• Isaac, C., Lee, B., & Carnes, M. (2009). Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: A systematic review. Academic Medicine, 84(10), 1440-1446.
• Jaarsma, P., & Welin, S. (2012). Autism as a natural human variation: Reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement. Health Care Analysis, 20(1), 20-30.
• Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016-1033.
• Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386-408.
• Johnson, T. D., & Joshi, A. (2016). Dark clouds or silver linings? A stigma threat perspective on the implications of an autism diagnosis for workplace well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 430-449.
• Kapp, S. K., Gillespie-Lynch, K., Sherman, L. E., & Hutman, T. (2013). Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 59.
• Karpur, A., VanLooy, S., & Bruyère, S. (2014).  Employer practices for employment of people with disabilities: A literature scoping review. Journal of Rehabilitation Research, Policy and Education, 28(4), 225-241. 
• Keating CT, Hickman L, Leung J, Monk R, Montgomery A, Heath H, Sowden S. (2023). Autism-related language preferences of English-speaking individuals across the globe: A mixed methods investigation. Autism Res, 16(2):406-428.
• Khan, M. H., Grabarski, M. K., Ali, M., & Buckmaster, S. (2023). Insights into creating and managing an inclusive neurodiverse workplace for positive outcomes: A multistaged theoretical framework. Group & Organization Management, 48(5), 1339-1386.
• Kidwell, K. E., Clancy, R. L., & Fisher, G. G. (2023). The devil you know versus the devil you don’t: Disclosure versus masking in the workplace. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 55-60.
• Krzeminska, A.; Austin, R. D.; Bruyère, S. & Hedley, D. (2019). The advantages and challenges of neurodiversity employment in organizations. Journal of Management and Organization, July 25(4): 453 – 463.
• LeFevre-Levy, R., Melson-Silimon, A., Harmata, R., Hulett, A. L., & Carter, N. T. (2023). Neurodiversity in the workplace: Considering neuroatypicality as a form of diversity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 1-19.
• Martin, V., Flanagan, T. D., Vogus, T. J., & Chênevert, D. (2023). Sustainable employment depends on quality relationships between supervisors and their employees on the autism spectrum. Disability and Rehabilitation, 45(11), 1784-1795.
• Miller, C. C. (2024). Pirates, adventurers, and free spirits: The people of Academy of Management Discoveries. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(1), 1-6.
• Nelson, R. H. (2021). A critique of the neurodiversity view. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38(2), 335-347.
• Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• Pisano, G. P. & Austin, R. D. (2016a). SAP SE: Autism at Work. Harvard Business School Case Study 9-616-042, January 19.
• Pisano, G. P., & Austin, R. D. (2016b). Hewlett Packard Enterprise: The Dandelion Program. Harvard Business School Case Study 9-617-016, September 8.
• Roberson, Q. M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 69-88.
• Rockmann, K. (2023). Embracing an exploratory mindset: How AMD is changing the script of good science. Academy of Management Discoveries, 9(4), 419-423.
• Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1-13.
• Roux, A. M., Shattuck, P. T., Rast, J. E., Rava, J. A., & Anderson, K. A. (2013). Characteristics of autism spectrum disorder and the transition to adulthood. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(3), 1654-1662.
• Saleh, M. & Bruyere, S. (2018). Leveraging employer practices in global regulatory frameworks to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities, Social Inclusion, 6(1), 18-28.
• Sedgewick, F., Leppanen, J., & Tchanturia, K. (2021). Autism and mental health: A review of mental health needs and the role of the autism social and communication framework. Autism, 25(3), 719-729.
• Singer, J. (1997). Why can’t you be normal for once in your life? From a “problem with no name ” to the emergence of a new category of difference. In M. Corker & S. French (Eds.), Disability Discourse (pp. 59-67). Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Skilton, P. F., & Dooley, K. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 118-134.
• Taylor, J. L., & Seltzer, M. M. (2011). Employment and post-secondary educational activities for young adults with autism spectrum disorders during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(5), 566–574.
• Treweek, C., Wood, C., Martin, J. and Freeth, M., 2019. Autistic people’s perspectives on stereotypes: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Autism, 23(3), pp.759-769.