Doing It the ‘Wrong’ Way Round: Neurodivergent Thinking and Practice-Led Innovation, Towards an Occupation-Specific, Neuroaffirming Frame of Reference

Traditionally, we are told that research comes first. Then comes theory. Only once those foundations are firmly in place should we begin developing practical tools.

But what happens when your brain simply does not work in that order?

As a neurodivergent professional, my information processing does not always follow a neat, linear path. I often need to see an idea, explore how it might work in practice and understand how its different parts connect before I can step back and formalise the theory behind it. So, naturally, I approached my latest project entirely the ‘wrong’ way round.

Beginning with the whole picture

First, I visualised the complete architecture of a new conceptual framework in my head.

Then I put it on paper.

From there, I moved the design online and began drafting practical tools and guidance for how they might be used.

And now… I have begun the required research.

I will be honest: this is my least favourite part. Not because I do not value research; I absolutely do, but because reviewing, organising and synthesising large amounts of information asks something very different of my brain. The hyper-focused, all-consuming need to finish this yesterday is tempered by the slower work of locating evidence, comparing ideas and carefully testing assumptions, which requires a different kind of attention.

A different pathway, not a wrong one

There can be a quiet pressure within professional and academic spaces to make our thinking look tidier than it really is. We often present innovation as a logical sequence: identify a problem, review the literature, develop a theory and then design a response.

Sometimes that is exactly what happens. Sometimes it is not.

For many neurodivergent people, understanding may emerge through images, patterns, movement, practical experimentation or an intense sense of how separate ideas connect. We may recognise the shape of something before we have the language to explain it. We may need to build, test, rearrange and revisit before the formal structure becomes clear. This happens via a different route than would be expected but is not at the expense of the required rigour.

The important part is that we do eventually pause, examine our assumptions and ask whether the ideas stand up to evidence. Research helps us refine what we have created, identify what is missing and challenge the parts that may not hold. It does not have to extinguish creativity; it can help give creativity a stronger and more accountable foundation.

Where the project is now

So far, I have developed an occupation-specific, neuroaffirming frame of reference intended to support formulation and a more holistic approach to care.

In occupational therapy, formulation is a way of bringing information together to understand what may be happening for a person, why particular barriers have developed and what might meaningfully support change. A neuroaffirming approach does not begin by asking how we can make someone appear less neurodivergent. Instead, it considers the whole person: their strengths, needs, identity, environment, relationships, sensory experiences and the occupations that give daily life structure and meaning.

I hope that this developing framework will help clinicians hold those different elements together, rather than viewing a person through isolated difficulties or a list of symptoms.

It is still a work in progress. I am now moving, very slowly and carefully, towards a conceptual synthesis, bringing the emerging framework into conversation with the existing evidence. The research may confirm some parts, reshape others or show me where further thinking is needed. That is part of the process.

Making space for different ways of creating

Building this framework has not been linear, conventional or especially ‘proper’. But perhaps that has contributed something valuable. I think starting with the visual and practical elements allowed me to hold the framework as a whole before separating it into parts. It helped me stay connected to the real-world purpose of the work: supporting thoughtful formulation and more holistic, neuroaffirming care.

Neurodivergent processing is not necessarily the ‘wrong order’. It may simply be a different pathway towards the same goal.

Of course, working this way can bring challenges. Ideas multiply. Notes appear in several places. A clear connection in your head can be surprisingly difficult to translate into a document that another person can follow. Finding systems that support the process, without forcing it into a shape that no longer works for you, can make all the difference. I will be sharing more about the framework as the research progresses.

For now, I would love to hear from other neurodivergent practitioners and creators:

• Have you ever built something completely out of order?

• How does your brain prefer to move from idea to action?

• What tools, websites or organisational strategies help you keep hold of the threads?

My route towards an occupation-specific, neuroaffirming frame of reference

There is no single correct route to thoughtful, evidence-informed innovation. Sometimes we begin with the research. Sometimes we begin with the picture in our head. What matters is that we remain curious, reflective and willing to test what we think we know.

#Neurodiversity #OccupationalTherapy #Neuroaffirming #Neurodivergent #Research #MentalHealth #Sensory #OTFramework #Masking #InclusivePractice #CreativityInPractice #ShareYourHacks #PracticeLedInnovation