3.1.1. Interpreting identity in team context.

Students articulated a deep awareness of how their neurodivergent tendencies and traits were perceived within their teams, with some reflecting on how they undervalue their unique cognitive abilities and contributions. Specifically, students explained how their neurodivergence contrasted, and sometimes complemented, their team members’ thinking styles:

…we don’t notice the little things everyone else notices. We notice the differences, right? That’s what I found, at least. So, my group members will all notice something, and that’s their way to fix it, but in my mind, I notice it from a different perspective. (S9)

Students described a mismatch between how they view their own intentions and behaviour and how their team members interpret them. One student explained that they can come off “as something else” when they are just trying to engage in the conversation and share their knowledge (S12). This discrepancy often led to misunderstandings, with intended cooperative or neutral actions being misconstrued as unresponsive or aggressive, as one student recounted:

But aggressive, to attack, to go after somebody, that’s what shocked me. I genuinely didn’t think I was that person, right? I think that was the main piece of it, that I never thought I went for anybody like they’re depicting I was. (S9)

Given the evidence that students had from previous teamwork experiences, others regularly misinterpret their actions and behaviours, typically assigning negative intent. Therefore, it is not surprising that these experiences culminated in a broader sense of feeling constantly judged or misunderstood by others and struggling to gain respect, as illustrated by the following student:

It’s like, “Oh. Why would you say that? Why would you think that?” And it just causes a lot of misunderstanding. (S4)

Closely connected to these sentiments is the need to feel acknowledged, validated, and respected by team members, as explained by a student:

In terms of communication, when I find myself in environments where the way I naturally communicate is seen as a strength, I can be close to people in a way that is meaningful to me. (S11)

Taken together, these reflections represent a constant tension between the desire for authentic expression and the challenges of being truly heard and validated as a neurodivergent individual.

3.1.2. Exercising interpersonal sensitivity and empathy.

Empathy and sensitivity toward the feelings and perspectives of team members were brought up frequently. Clearly, the desire to be understood, as outlined in the previous theme, also translates to the desire to understand others, including taking time to understand the overall atmosphere of the team environment, as one student described:

In general, are people very monotone, quiet, and serious? Are people talking at all? On the other hand, are people very lively—almost to a detriment because it’s off-topic because we’re having so much fun together? (S14)

Students highlighted both cognitive empathy (being able to see things from another team member’s perspective) and emotional empathy (personally connecting with and relating to the feelings of other team members). For example, one student explained that they can both put themselves “in the shoes of other team members” in addition to being able to “feel when another team member feels left out” (S5). Considering another team member’s perspective was not always second nature for students, especially in contexts where emotions were heightened. One student shared, “If I’m part of the conflict, then it might take me a while to see it from the other person’s perspective. But if I’m not part of the conflict, I’ll try to see it from both sides” (S8).

Subtle changes, such as a team member talking less or seeming distant, were signals students noticed that could indicate distress. One student described, “I was like, ‘I’ll do the whole speech,’ and then one of my friends insisted that he wanted to do it, but when he went up, he kind of choked… And I just felt bad for him” (S4). Attentiveness created a foundation for students to behave in a more accommodating way, taking team members’ emotions, life circumstances, and commitments into account, as illustrated by a student who expressed, “I get it if something happens. I’m not a ‘No, too bad, you have to do this’ type of person” (S10).

Closely related to empathy, students reported being highly attuned to tensions within the group and how they might affect fellow team members, which sometimes impedes their ability to work effectively. One student described, “Say there’s someone with a very dominating presence in the group and they’re excluding someone, I definitely get overly empathetic about it, where I’m unable to work until it’s resolved” (S16).

Students’ ability to empathize and be cognizant of others’ viewpoints permeated many interactions and revealed the dual desire of wanting to connect with and understand others while feeling understood themselves.

3.1.3. Processing internal dialogue.

Internal dialogue represents the internal thought processes and negotiations that occur when students evaluate team dynamics or decide how to address team conflict and express their ideas. Students described a constant internal conversation that influences their decision-making and interaction strategies within teams. For example, one student explained how overthinking can lead to difficulty taking action by stating, “I overthink a lot in my head, and I communicate a lot with myself in my head, but I can’t always communicate with others” (S5).

This pattern of hyper-fixating on and thinking deeply about one thing at a time can result in a rigid approach to evaluating people, ideas, and situations, which can make it difficult to reconsider initial judgments. One student shared, “I definitely struggle to go from disliking someone to liking someone. It’s either ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ and I tend not to go back and forth too much” (S6).

Students carefully weigh the potential risks (e.g., conflict, judgment) and benefits (e.g., clarity, contribution) when deciding whether to voice their opinions and speak up in team interactions:

I feel inside, like I don’t like the direction we’re going in, but I feel like it’s still just easier because I don’t have a clear, distinct idea in my head of where we should be going. (S1)

Together, these reflections underscore how constant internal dialogue can, in many instances, result in feeling “stuck,” whether due to hesitation in sharing opinions or difficulty shifting initial evaluations.

3.1.4. Processing emotions.

Students reflected on their experiences grappling with the often-complex emotions that arise during teamwork. These emotions could be internally driven (e.g., guilt about contributions) or related to external factors and interactions (e.g., frustration with team members). Although team members were unaffected by instances where they internalized frustration or negative emotions, students experienced emotional tension that impacted their perception of their team members, often negatively. As one student highlighted, there are emotional consequences to constantly internalizing:

I don’t really have conflict with people, but something that does end up happening, though, is I build up emotions towards people. Sometimes I’ll get frustrated but I won’t express it. Then, when I look at the person, I’ll just get frustrated for no reason, just because I’m looking at them, and I associate them with frustration. (S5)

Uncertainty also played a significant role in triggering negative emotions. One student likened the experience of having little control over outcomes to “being on rails, like a train… You’re just going where the rails are going” (S14). Another student described the paralyzing effect of uncertainty and how it can leave them feeling hopeless and anxious, which drives their direct approach to addressing conflict:

It makes me very anxious whenever I’ve gotten messages from team members saying, “Hey! We have an issue.” And then that’s it… it actually will be like 50% of what I’m thinking about for the rest of the day. So, then I’m like, “Okay, we need to solve this now.” (S10)

Students recounted the considerable emotional labour involved in conforming to perceived neurotypical norms, including interpreting implied meanings and navigating communication expectations, as illustrated by a student who remarked that they could not “constantly be guessing at what they [their group members] mean” for a semester-long project (S11). Another student explained, “I don’t think I always know how to talk to certain kinds of people because there seem to be different styles of communicating for different types of people. Generally, I use the same style with everyone I talk to, and it doesn’t always work” (S16), highlighting how relying on their natural approach to communication can lead to misinterpretations and tension.

One student described the strain and exhaustion they experienced as a result of masking:

I didn’t realize how much energy I was focusing into masking and having to “act normal” until my counsellor gave me back my scores on it, and I apparently do that a lot, so that also factors in. And energy and burnout—just having to consciously make the decisions to act more like a neurotypical, just like what’s expected of me, you know? (S12)

3.1.5. Conflict narrative.

How students interpret conflict (e.g., positively or negatively valenced) affects how they react to and engage in difficult conversations. One student discussed how they view team conflict as a shared challenge:

To me, it’s not us against each other; it’s us versus a problem. So why don’t we work together to solve the problem instead of fighting each other over it and avoiding it? It just prolongs how long someone’s mad at someone else. (S10)

Conversely, other students held a belief that conflict is inherently negative, destructive, or damaging to team relationships:

I don’t want to be in anyone’s bad eye, so I won’t really say anything. And again, I tend to promote safe work environments and safe classroom environments. So, I feel like if I did do that [confronting a team member about their lack of involvement in the project], I would be affecting what I’m trying to create. (S15)

A tension between the desire for immediate resolution and the need for delayed or more reflective problem-solving was apparent. One participant described the pressure they felt to quickly settle disagreements by stating, “…it also means sometimes that problem needs to be avoided for now, and we need to put a little circle around it and say we’re coming back to this. I have a tough time doing that. I’m really like, ‘Let’s solve this. Let’s do it’” (S10). This balance between taking immediate action and allowing time for reflection represented an ongoing negotiation between the emotional urgency of conflict and the desire for a comprehensive solution that represents the team’s collective interests and perspectives.

3.2.1. Approaches to participation.

When discussing how they participate in projects, students highlighted how they typically contribute to the team’s work and discussions. These contributions ranged from students generating and pushing ideas to following directions and stepping back to allow others to take the reins. Many students sought to create opportunities for all their fellow team members to voice their opinions and ideas:

And so, I feel like the biggest success is just making a product that everyone involved in and can be proud of it. Everyone can say, “Oh, I did this part. I did this part.” As opposed to everyone being like, “Oh yeah, I did this because you know, so and so told me to.” (S7)

On one end of the continuum of influence and compliance, some students gravitated toward actively, and sometimes assertively, shaping the team’s direction. One student illustrated this approach by sharing, “…but I’m not good at being like, ‘Oh, we can do your thing.’ I’m not good [laughs] at that. I’m pretty stubborn, and I can be insulting accidentally” (S6). In contrast, on the other end of the continuum, students prioritized following direction from their team members as opposed to asserting their own ideas. One student shared, “So I kind of feel like I shouldn’t be trying to input into the initial idea of a project. Because I can follow through with a process. That should be more of my contribution to the project” (S1).

In addition to the degree of influence students preferred to have in projects, their orientation to taking action also emerged as a key approach. Some students described how they consistently advocate for addressing potential obstacles as soon as possible and prioritizing progress. One student remarked, “I don’t avoid problems. If there is an issue, it is a ‘let’s solve it now issue’ all the time” (S10).

3.2.2. Approaches to idea exchange.

Students employed a range of strategies when conveying and responding to ideas and concerns during group discussions. Some students described confidently challenging, debating, or pushing others to think more deeply. This direct assertion was illustrated by a student who explained, “As soon as I hear someone’s idea, I automatically play devil’s advocate. I just jump right to, ‘What about this? Have we thought about how we would do that?’” (S5). Other students gravitated to a more cautious approach to speaking up by using “softer” language and qualifying statements. One student shared, “When I do speak up about something—which I do—it’s more like, ‘Maybe we should rethink this part’ not, ‘I think we should do this instead’” (S1). Another student described, “If I’m ever in a group setting where I don’t exactly know everyone, then I’m a bit less comfortable, especially when I have to share my idea” (S13), highlighting the interplay between hesitance in speaking up and a sense of psychological safety in the team environment.

Some students detailed instances where they explicitly checked in with team members to confirm agreement or ensure collective buy-in on proposed actions or directions. Rather than assuming everyone was on the same page, they asked questions such as, “Does that sound okay?” or “Does anyone have any objections to that?” (S14).

Even though students take different approaches to sharing ideas during discussions, they carefully assess the potential impact of how their questions and opinions are phrased and how this might influence group dynamics and project outcomes.

3.2.3. Conflict management strategies.

Although students’ methods for managing team disagreements varied, they demonstrated awareness and attunement to situational cues, especially team members’ emotions. Some of these strategies closely aligned with the five styles students would have received scores on in their CMS report, while others were unique or represented more nuance in how a certain style was enacted.

For instance, many students highlighted a tendency to gravitate to a mediator role for other team members. One student shared, “If I’m seeing conflict in my team, I’m able to be like, ‘Okay, let’s talk it out. What’s going on? What are we feeling this way?’” (S5). Although this reflection represents aspects of the integrating style, it also demonstrates a deeper focus on facilitating open dialogue and supporting team members’ emotional well-being.

Examples that highlighted withdrawal from or monitoring of conflict mapped well to the avoiding style. For example, one student explained, “…if there was anything wrong in a group environment, I’m like, ‘Okay. I don’t want to talk about it. I don’t want to do this’” (S15). However, instances of a student observing group dynamics and noticing tensions, while avoiding direct confrontation, go beyond the definition of avoiding because of the focus on gathering information. This attentiveness is illustrated by a student who remarked that they typically “spectate conflict” (S12), suggesting that taking a step back from conflict could be a way to enhance understanding of the situation rather than purely to escape the discomfort associated with confrontation.

Opposite to the avoiding style, some students preferred to address conflict directly. One student recounted a situation where they confronted a team member about their lack of involvement:

And so, we were kind of like giving him crap for it. Like, “Come on, man. We feel like you’re not pulling your weight on this group project, and then we’re all doing more than you.” (S7)

While the focus of the dominating style is on persuading others to accept one’s own preferences and goals, the aim of direct confrontation is to clarify expectations and promote collective accountability.

However, some students worked in situations where there was a lack of clarity and parameters. Navigating this grey area pulls in elements of avoiding and accommodating. Students sacrificed their desire for a clear path forward to maintain group cohesion and relationships. One student illustrated their willingness to work in ambiguity to maintain peace:

The problem is when we don’t have an idea of where we should go. Some people may have some vague ideas, and I might still try to work with it. Like, “Okay, well, you have this idea. Let’s try to put this together.” But [the issue is that] it doesn’t fit… (S1)

In a similar vein, students described instances where they conceded their needs, opinions, or preferences for the benefit of the group or a specific team member, which mapped closely to the accommodating style. One student recounted, “Rather than discussing it like I had first project, I just said, ‘Okay, we can work with yours’ in that attempt to be more cooperative” (S9). One student described withholding their contributions as a form of protest, which did not align with the five styles:

…they can struggle because they actually don’t know the things I know about this. So, I ignored all the conversations about it and anything, and I didn’t offer any expertise that I had. (S9)

This strategy may have provided an avenue for re-establishing some degree of autonomy and control that this individual felt had been taken away from them.

3.2.4. Role and responsibility distribution tendencies.

In discussing how they navigate their roles within teams, students reflected on their tendencies to assign roles and tasks to themselves or others to optimize team functioning. In terms of roles, concepts of flexibility and (lack of) clarity emerged from the data. In explaining how they “found” their role, one student recounted, “Pretty quickly in I realized that like everyone was like kind of picking roles and the leader role had kind of already been taken, and I wasn’t really sure like how I would work in that role so I definitely didn’t even try to be that person” (S6).

Furthermore, students adapted their roles when they noticed a leadership void, a situation demanded a certain skillset, or specific responsibilities needed to be filled to meet the team’s needs:

Whatever role is missing, I fill that role. Like in my family role, it’s the quiet, compromising, just mediating role. At school, it is a delegation kind of leader, more outspoken role. (S9)

Interestingly, despite students’ discomfort with uncertainty, these reflections demonstrate that many were willing to work in tasks and roles without clear parameters to establish direction and focus. Beyond being adaptable, students distributed tasks to ensure equity and effectiveness, as well as to reduce uncertainty and personal anxiety. Some students delegated tasks with consideration of team members’ abilities, commitments or personal circumstances, such as one student who stated, “I like to make sure that if people have other things going on, besides our project, that there’s like a reasonable expectation set for them” (S16). Another student described how they assign tasks by explaining, “…it’s just divvied up by ‘you do this, I’ll do that. Does that sound fair?’” (S2).

Other students preferred not to delegate and instead handle tasks themselves. In some cases, this preference was driven by the need for efficiency under time constraints, as highlighted by one student who said, “When they left the room, I was very able to be super efficient and get everything done” (S6).

3.2.5. Self-management and regulation.

Students discussed how they handle the pressures and demands of teamwork while regulating their behaviour and emotions. Some students experienced challenges with tasks and responsibilities that hinge on executive functioning abilities (e.g., organization, time management), as exemplified by one student who shared, “…I have a million ideas going on, but I don’t ever finish them, so I need one of my friends to write them down as I go, so I can revisit them because I will forget and just move on to something as I get a thought” (S3).

Although students acknowledged how executive functioning challenges related to their neurodivergent identity could negatively impact their teamwork contributions, they also leveraged team support to overcome these obstacles. One student alluded to the benefits of “body doubling” by sharing, “…as a person who struggles with ADHD, I feel like being in a team really just balances out all the downsides of my ADHD, you know. Other people might keep me in control and stop me from getting distracted” (S4).

Lastly, students modelled transparent communication in sharing project-related updates, acknowledging issues, and inviting frank discussions to maintain clarity and understanding within the team. One student explained that if they experienced some kind of challenge and were delayed in their contributions, they would go to their team members and say, “This is what’s going on my end, and I will be fixing it at some point” (S3). In most cases, this transparency was linked to both wanting to contribute meaningfully to the team’s work and minimizing instances of ambiguity.

Together, these reflections reveal how students draw on supportive structures, transparent communication, and self-awareness to navigate challenges related to, and that extend beyond, executive functioning.

3.2.6. Strategies to cultivate team cohesion.

Lastly, students emphasized the importance of fostering an inclusive team culture where team members’ identities are respected and valued. Building a foundation of trust and rapport was often prioritized, as exemplified by one student who noted, “…having a stronger relationship with my team members would, of course, be the first thing. It just makes dialogue a lot more easy and makes communication a lot more easy” (S5).

Team connection and cohesion hinge on recognizing and valuing the diverse abilities of all team members, which, tying back to the cognitive dimension, directly impacts how individuals perceive their own contributions and worth within the group. In some instances, students chose to disclose their neurodivergent identity to their team members to reduce the risk of misunderstanding and assumptions:

And my identity didn’t come up in the words. I think after the [references specific situation], I did make a joke of like, ‘tism. And then we laughed and moved on. But in that specific conversation, no, it didn’t come up in like a, “Yeah, I got screened for XYZ and here’s where we are.” But it did sort of come up in the way that was like, “Hey, this is how my brain works…” (S11)

Students disclosed to promote understanding, and this understanding extended to team members as well. Valuing the perspectives, opinions, and contributions of their team members were ways in which students promoted mutual recognition and respect. One student reflected, “The thing about me and other neurodivergent students is that we don’t judge. We accept people for who they are…” (S15). Similarly, another student stated, “I find other people who have different traits are not always accepted. I don’t usually have any bias against that” (S16).

4.1.1. Conflict management theories.

Students displayed a range of conflict management strategies that both aligned with and departed from the dual concern model. While the integrating style is typically characterized by active engagement in the conflict (i.e., individuals advocate for their interests and those of the opposing party), some neurodivergent students reported positioning themselves as neutral facilitators, focusing on understanding and mediating interactions for their fellow team members. This tendency to assume a mediator role may be related to students’ proficiency in perspective-taking and sensitivity to team members’ emotional states. Additionally, some students described monitoring behaviours, which may be related to the avoiding style, as students reported observing conflict without intervening. However, this behaviour was not merely about evasion; students were observing and gathering information about their team members to better understand the dynamics at play.

Neurodivergent students described heightened sensitivity to team and conflict dynamics. This heightened sensitivity may lead students to adopt strategies to carefully gauge and act on interpersonal cues and emotional tensions within their teams. In some cases, this heightened sensitivity gives rise to unique responses that deepen our understanding of styles in the dual concern model, particularly as they relate to concern for others. For instance, the data illuminates why students might adopt the avoiding style, which has been a longstanding interest to researchers due to uncertainty around the underlying cognitive and emotional motives for disengagement [62]. What might be interpreted by team members as “aloofness” actually reflects an intentional effort to absorb and process value-laden social information and cues from team members [9]. The way in which neurodivergent students interpret these interpersonal cues to inform strategies may be further explained by social information processing theory..

Departing from the dual concern model, one student described withholding their contributions as a form of protest. Specifically, they withheld their expertise and knowledge from the team to “even the playing field” and re-establish control. This approach highlights that the dimensions of concern for self and others captured in the dual concern model may be affected by perceptions of equity or threats to autonomy. Therefore, integrating relational justice theories into conflict management style theories may be especially relevant for understanding conflict in neurodiverse teams.

Students demonstrated intentionality and flexibility in enacting conflict management styles depending on team dynamics and situational cues. Many students explained strategically adjusting their approach based on team members’ emotional states or the need to promote collective accountability and cohesion. This adaptability in conflict management strategies reflected a broader pattern of intentional flexibility that extended across multiple teamwork behaviours. For instance, in describing their teamwork roles and responsibilities, students explained readily shifting their roles in response to perceived leadership voids and project demands for a specific skillset, highlighting a broader ability to adaptively engage with teamwork challenges. Additionally, when participating and exchanging ideas, students strategically took active roles in guiding discussion or driving project progress while also recognizing when to step back to give other members the chance to engage and influence the team’s collective direction.

Research on conflict management styles recognizes that there is no single best method for handling conflict across situations and that methods should vary across contexts [39,41]. In line with these propositions, the findings offer some preliminary insights into how and why neurodivergent students shift among behaviours and strategies. This fluidity reflects a process-based perspective of conflict management, in which styles are not a one-time choice, but iterative, situation-to-situation decisions that accumulate to influence broader teamwork patterns [38,40]. Furthermore, the findings position conflict management within the broader social dynamics of teamwork. Rather than treating approaches to managing conflict in isolation, the data reveal that neurodivergent students calibrate their actions to maintain trust, cohesion, and accountability across multiple teamwork domains.

4.1.2. EDI and neurodiversity theories.

An overarching theme that emerged from the data is the dual desire to be understood and understand others. Many students described being acutely aware of how their neurodivergent traits might be interpreted by team members, sometimes anticipating judgment. Simultaneously, students invested significant mental effort in observing team members, anticipating others’ needs or emotional states, and reading the overall team dynamic. These cognitions laid a framework for several corresponding behaviours, such as confirming agreement among team members, using qualifying language to soften suggestions, or, conversely, speaking up if they felt a team member was being excluded. Concern for their team members and the need for their own neurodivergence to be acknowledged compelled students to foster team environments where mutual understanding and inclusion were central tenets.

These cognitive and behavioural efforts align with the social model of disability, which underscores the role that institutions and peers play in creating barriers for neurodivergent individuals to participate [17,63]. Some students noted the effort they exerted in piecing together social information in interactions that seemed readily available to their neurotypical team members. Structural stigma also drives individuals to engage in identity management behaviours to reduce their risk of experiencing discrimination [20,64]. One student, in particular, referred to “masking” as a way to make their neurodivergent characteristics less noticeable in team contexts. Stigma awareness and anticipating judgment led to instances where students had to reconcile the differences between intended and perceived messages or grappled with feelings of inferiority about the value of their abilities, knowledge, and ideas. These findings suggest that the stigmatization of neurodivergent traits creates barriers to participation and inclusion and can negatively impact self-identity, which aligns with other research [52].

Collectively, these findings highlight how institutional norms and peer expectations impact neurodivergent students’ concept of their own identity, which in turn influences their behavioural strategies and approaches. Although relationships between institutional norms, stigmatization, discrimination, and how neurodivergent individuals perceive themselves have been previously established in the neurodiversity and EDI literature, this knowledge has yet to be applied to neurodivergent teamwork experiences.

Despite these points of clear connection, the findings suggest that some theories attempting to explain the social elements of neurodivergence are limited in their capacity to capture the nuanced ways in which neurodivergent individuals seek to understand and relate to others. Specifically, the double empathy problem, coined by Milton [48], describes how “different dispositional outlooks and personal conceptual understandings” can increase the potential for bi-directional misunderstanding between neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals. However, the themes we derived from interviews suggest that neurodivergent students are extremely sensitive to their team members’ emotional and cognitive states, often going to great lengths to ensure all team members feel valued. This heightened awareness may result in neurodivergent individuals taking on significant emotional labour within the team as they navigate their neurodivergent identity and teamwork dynamics.

The “double” empathy problem may be more reflective of a lack of reciprocal understanding from neurotypical individuals towards their neurodivergent peers. Based on our interactions with neurodivergent students, we found that they actively work to bridge gaps in understanding and communication. Future research is needed to explore how neurodivergent and neurotypical team members perceive and reciprocate efforts to bridge differences. Representational gaps (rGaps) offer a broader lens for understanding underlying processes that drive miscommunication [49]. In contrast to the emphasis on empathic shortcomings in the double empathy problem, rGaps extend these fundamental differences to underlying representational systems used to interpret information. Ultimately, rGaps may offer a more robust framework for identifying, reconciling, and leveraging differences in representational systems to bridge gaps between those with different perspectives and lived experiences.