by Rob Pensalfini1
This seems like an outrageous claim in a time when educational institutions are bending over backwards to be inclusive – or at least setting up committees and policies to make it seem that way – but one group which has found universities to be places where they could not only survive but thrive are slowly but surely being pushed out.
There is a famous story told at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about the founder of cybernetics, mathematician Norbert Wiener. It is told that he stopped half-way down the broad stairs of Building 10 to have a short conversation with a colleague, or it might have been a student. When the conversation ended after a couple of minutes and the two were about to take their leave of one another, Wiener asked his interlocutor “Was I going up the stairs or coming down?”
“Coming down” the other replied.
Wiener then asked “And today is Thursday?”
“Wednesday, Norbert.”
“Ah,” said Wiener, “well if it’s Wednesday and I was coming down the stairs, then I have already had lunch.”
Wiener was the archetype of the absent-minded professor. Insightful, innovative, and perceptive beyond comprehension in his own field, he appeared to be startlingly unaware or forgetful of the sort of things that a normal ten year old would be on top of, and – if this story is true – not even able to rely on cues from his own body, relying instead on external cues and ritual schedules to guide him through time and space – his own schedules. In a keynote address to a conference on his lasting impact in 2014, Mary Catherine Bateson described his “social ineptitude… limited empathy and sometimes difficulty in communicating” (though he was profoundly interested in human behaviour and “deeply concerned about the impact of cybernetics on human society, the creation of unemployment, and making warfare more destructive”). Applying today’s understanding, he was almost certainly Autistic.
Norbert Wiener could not survive in a modern university. He would never have been given the chance to rise through the ranks to professorial status, and certainly could not have handled the administrative and career progression demands increasingly imposed by an academic bureaucracy increasingly removed from the coal-face of teaching and research, and mostly managed by professionals who left that coal face relatively early in their careers to manage and guide the sector rather than to create knowledge and ideas themselves. Even on the basis of his research output, he would not make the cut – while his publications were ground-breaking, there were often years between them, which is completely unacceptable for a contemporary researcher.
The increasing corporatisation and managerialism of contemporary universities has been written about extensively, along with the disproportionate amount of funding that goes to management of education as opposed to its development and delivery. While this is clearly at the root of the issue I raise here, my focus in this opinion piece is rather on the plight of the Norbert Wieners of this world. While today’s academics are undoubtedly skilled, talented, even brilliant, it is almost impossible to imagine a Norbert Wiener, an Albert Einstein, a Ludwig Wittgenstein, or an Isaac Newton achieving success in the contemporary university. You’ll note these are all men, because Autistic women have always faced and continue to face a further barrier to success in professional fields, including academia. Women are firstly judged on their demonstration of social skills (‘you should smile more!’), and don’t get a look in if they don’t already know how to dress, the accepted way to demonstrate that they are listening, and so forth. Men have historically been given much more leeway in this regard. This is one of the reasons the invisible presentation of Autism has often been called the ‘female presentation’ – women (neurotypical or neurodivergent) are taught to mask from a very young age. The absent-minded woman professor is not an archetype.
Let’s pause for a moment to consider the typical intelligence profiles of Autistic versus neurotypical people. Many (though not all) neurodivergent folks have a profile called ‘spiky intelligence’. It has been understood for generations that ‘intelligence’, or more broadly and colloquially ‘brain power’, is not just one thing. That being good at arithmetic is no guarantee of being good at reading, and so forth. But by and large, in the neurotypical brain, one can speak of people that are in general terms more or less intelligent across the board. While the quantifications offered by measures like Intelligence Quotient are flawed in a number of ways, let’s hypothesise a measure of general intelligence qualified as low to high, represented on the Y axis in the figures below. Allowing for variation across different abilities, which on the graph below are idealised as A1, A2 and so forth on the X axis, without naming them. These As might be understood as separating mathematical reasoning, spatial reasoning, verbal skills, social skills, processing speed, and executive function, among others. The average neurotypical mind has a profile that looks something like this:
So while the line across the intelligences is wavy, with the individual being better at some things than others, there is minimal deviation away from the mean for any cognitive ability.
A spiky intelligence profile, on the other hand, looks more like this:
That is, while the mean score across abilities might still hit the same level as in Figure 1, the deviation on any individual ability can be much greater. The individual represented in Figure 2 is much more capable in some areas and much less capable in others than the individual represented in Figure 1.
Contrary to various conflicting folk theories, not all Autistic people are geniuses, nor are we all impaired or disabled. However, while Figure 1 shows someone who is more or less average across their abilities, Figure 2 shows someone who is average at some things (A2, A5), brilliant in A3, impaired in A4, significantly better than average in A7, well below average in A1, and below average in A6.
If we took the shape of the graph in Figure 2 and moved it up or down the Y axis, we would get spiky profiles with different means, or different overall ‘brain power’. The significantly impaired Autistic person might look like this:
Such an individual would display average ability in one area but underperform significantly in all others, with some being extremely impaired indeed. If the spike on A3 were even higher – well above ‘high’, call it ‘extremely high’ – while the others remained as shown in Figure 3, this person might have been labelled (in outdated parlance) an ‘idiot savant’.
Now we come to the ‘gifted’ Autistic profile, that of an individual with high overall general intelligence, showing some traits of great capability, even genius, in one or a few specific areas:
Figure 4 depicts someone of well above average general intelligence, with one area of ‘genius’, and some average and below average abilities.
It is probably not too controversial to say that one of the qualities necessary to succeed as an academic is above average intellectual ability. Of the four figures outlined above, only Figure 4 would make the grade on that criterion. As would a neurotypical with a profile like that in Figure 5.
Both the individuals represented by Figure 4 and Figure 5 could have been academics in the past, with Figure 4 representing the ‘Absent-Minded Professor’ or ‘Flaky Genius’ archetype, and Figure 5 the ‘Very Smart Person’ archetype.
Let’s review these five archetypes and give them made up names so we can talk about them later:
Figure 1: an average neurotypical intelligence profile……………….. Normi
Figure 2: a spiky intelligence profile………………………………………. Spike
Figure 3: spiky intelligence with low average cognitive ability……… Syd
Figure 4: ‘gifted’ spiky intelligence………………………………………… Genie
Figure 5: a highly intelligent neurotypical profile……………………… Alec
Syd wouldn’t get a job as an academic, despite their excellence in one area, as their generally low intelligence would never have them achieve the prerequisites. Normi probably wouldn’t, but actually that largely depends on social conditions such as their privilege and education, as well as their work ethic and tenacity. There are more than a few Normis in academia, people of average intelligence who have worked hard and been afforded the opportunities because of who they are and where they are from. Spike, Genie, and Alec could probably all secure academic jobs if they wanted to and those jobs were available. Let’s assume that this trio are all entry level academics.
My central claim here is that the types represented in Figures 2 and 4, people like Genie and Spike, are no longer valued, and can no longer thrive, in the contemporary university. Structures and practices in the modern university, both for advancement and for everyday functioning, operate on the assumption that someone who performs well in one cognitive area should perform well in all others, and that if they do not, they are being lazy and/or not pulling their weight.
At the institution in which I work, for example, academic staff appraised annually across four areas: teaching, research, service (administration), and supervision. In order to advance, to be considered for promotion or tenure, an individual must achieve an appraisal of ‘satisfactory’ in all four areas. If an individual is appraised as ‘needs development’ (it’s not called ‘unsatisfactory’ any more, but everyone knows that’s just semantics) repeatedly, two or more times in a row, they will be subject to compulsory training or eventually some form of sanction potentially including dismissal. An academic who does not yet have tenure and is appraised as needing development in any of these areas will not receive tenure.
Note that the underlying assumption is that an academic can and should pull their socks up or be trained to do better by the usual workplace sticks and carrots. The idea that someone may be extremely capable in some areas and simply not have the capacity in others is not countenanced. In my most recent appraisal, my supervisor’s supervisor (in overruling my supervisor’s appraisal) told me that “we have to excel across all areas”.
At this point, Alec and Genie would get tenure and probably be promoted, while Spike would be cut loose. As Alec and Genie continue to progress, different demands are made on them, demands which Genie will struggle with though they outperform Alec significantly in areas relating to their main interest and skill.
One of the things which happens to a modern academic at some point is that they are required to take on larger administrative roles – directorships of programs, headships of departments and so forth. Alec will perform these tasks as well as they perform everything else, and continue to achieve ‘satisfactory’ appraisals, while Genie will find themself struggling with certain of these tasks. Perhaps more hurtful than the ‘needs development’ appraisal, which at first is just between them and their supervisor, is the reputation that Genie will get for not doing their job well, for slacking off, for not caring. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions. What we are told we are, we will become, so Genie may well take on an attitude of not caring about the role, or saying it’s all silly anyway, as armour. Or they may simply believe they are ‘not good enough’ or that they really need to just work harder, leading to depression and/or anxiety, low self esteem which hampers performance even in their areas of excellent, and eventual burnout.
On a day to day basis, even at the lower levels of academia, Genie may find themself struggling. Compared to even twenty-five years ago, when I started my academic career, most day-to-day administrative tasks relating to teaching and research are now undertaken by academics. Long gone are the days when there were administrative staff whose jobs it was to make sure that deadlines were met, that information got from professors to students, that grades were transferred to the central administration, and so forth. This now all falls on the academics. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing in principle, though the execution of it leaves a lot to be desired. Academics are not given extra time to do these tasks, but are still expected to teach the same number of students (actually more, as tutorial sizes have increased).The administrative staff whose jobs were cut when these roles were shifted to academics have not been replaced with more academics, but with ‘higher-level’ administrative-academic roles. Universities are beset with increasing numbers of sub-deans, deputy pro-vice-under Chancellors and so forth. This is where Alec is probably destined (and they might find Normi already there).
Genie and Spike (assuming Spike hasn’t been turfed out of the academy yet) may well struggle with many of these tasks, if the cognitive requirements of these tasks coincide with one of their low spikes. Which they probably will, given that their high spikes will align with their specialist area(s). Genie will probably get by, thans to their exceptional overall (mean) intelligence. But the problem is that, for people like Genie, doing these tasks require far more effort, take much more energy, than they do for someone like Alec. And these are precisely the tasks that are obligatory in the contemporary academic environment. I have heard many of my spiky-minded colleagues say “By the time I have answered all my emails and filled in all the forms that are due today, I have no energy left for my research.” It’s not even about time, but available energy. The reason Genie and Spike were employed in the first place, the skills at which they excel, are the ones that fall by the wayside.
Note that ultimately it is Alec who will go far in the academic world, despite being of lower mean intelligence than Genie, and nowhere near as good as Genie in their respective high-performing areas. Genie may even be held back, or be fed courses and seminars to bring up their lower-performing areas, all of which will exhaust them and play havoc with their motivation and self-esteem, and ultimately their mental and physical health. Genie is likely to burn out and may well possibly drop out, and the sector and society will have lost Genie’s potential contributions.
I’ve done a lot of bemoaning in this short essay, so what’s the solution? Let’s assume that we’re never going to get staff back to do our admin for us, not in this society. Universities are corporations that are motivated by economic rationalism, and let’s assume that’s not going to change. The answer has to be in the formal recognition of the value to the sector of spiky intelligence profiles, of people who are very very good at one or two things, and really not so good at others, and never will be.
Appraisals (to the extent that they are necessary, but that’s another story) need to give up on this satisfactory/unsatisfactory dichotomy and the insistence that a person needs to perform well across all areas. That’s pretty much it. A person may bring great value to one area of academic life and be unsuited to others, and this ought to be recognised, and valued equally.
At this point, objectors may note that there are such programs. A truly exceptional researcher can apply for certain fellowships that effectively mean that most of what they do is pursue their research. Yet these are very rare indeed, and a candidate has to be very good indeed at self-promotion, something Autistic folk notoriously struggle with. The number of spiky profile academics far outweighs the number of such awards available.
Or it may be pointed out that there are, for those who are exceptional teachers but either less gifted or less interested in the research area, teaching-focused positions. But these are actually very arduous roles, and they are not valued equally. The teaching-focused academic is still required to publish as much as the teaching-and-research academic, it’s just that their publications are on ‘the scholarship of teaching’. The problem remains.
Exceptional neurodivergent teachers are also stymied by the one-size-fits-all approach to pedagogy, which enforces sameness of course design, assessment regimes, and course syllabi across an entire institution. Exceptional teachers (including neurotypical ones) are hemmed in by the demand to treat and deliver courses in the same way. A neurodivergent teacher will typically want to design and deliver the course in accordance with their (non-typical) way of understanding and sharing the special interest that has brought them to some prominence, but find themselves unable to shoehorn their specialty into narrow templates created by and for neurotypical administrators. There must be a return to recognising the teacher as the expert on what and how to teach.
There ought to be a focus on overall (total) performance and a rewarding of overall effort as well as overall effectiveness (not ‘efficiency’).
This leads to the question of why spiky intelligence exists in humans, in evolutionary terms – why hasn’t nature selected for higher but smoother overall intelligence? One answer proposed by psychologists working in the area of neurodivergence is that it promotes innovation and invention over competence. Without it, we keep doing things the way that has worked well enough. Genie and Spike (and yes also Syd), see new ways of doing things that may or may not work. Indeed, they may not work more often than they work. But when they do work, we all take a step forward (and Alec and Normi spread it through society, and probably take the credit for it).
One counterargument I have heard is that these are simply the intrinsic requirements of the job, and that perhaps spiky intelligence folks indeed do not have a place in academia today. If that is in indeed the case, and that universities are prepared to forego the contributions that we can make, then I hope this piece will explicitly draw out that argument and we can look for other ways to pass our time and earn a living. We had once, not so long ago, felt very welcome in academia.
If universities truly want to be breeding grounds of innovation, they must embrace and welcome neurodivergent intellectuals again. And maybe even make room for Syd, who can solve mathematical puzzles that have eluded us for generations, but can’t fill in an online form correctly, operate a photocopier, or remember their students’ names and pronouns.
Thanks to Valli Jones, clinical psychologist, and Michelle Livock, clinical neuropsychologist, for their invaluable contributions to earlier drafts. Valli has been instrumental in developing my own understanding of neurotypes, and I strongly recommend her book Embracing Neurodiversity with the Safe House Framework (about a dollar on Amazon) to anyone wishing to explore this area. ↩︎
The Fifth Columnist 