Dialogic Practice as a Vehicle for Inclusion: Navigating Belonging, Engagement, and Complexity in a Neurodiverse Higher Education Landscape

Abstract

As colleges and universities enroll increasing numbers of neurodivergent students, questions of inclusion, belonging, and sustained engagement have become central concerns in higher education research and practice. This article presents a theory-informed narrative synthesis of scholarship on dialogic pedagogy, student belonging, neurodiversity, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and trauma-aware education. It also includes a reflexive institutional illustration of the Ongoing Academic and Social Instruction Support (OASIS) program. Institutionally reported outcomes are interpreted as descriptive indicators rather than causal evidence, given the absence of independent evaluation and comparative data. The analysis highlights both the promise and the constraints of dialogic approaches, including issues of power, scalability, and structural limitations. The article concludes with implications for practice and a research agenda emphasizing longitudinal and comparative evaluation.

1. Introduction

Institutions of higher education are enrolling an increasingly neurodivergent student population, yet disparities in belonging, engagement, and participation remain. While student access to accommodations has expanded, they often continue to experience misalignment between institutional structures and their learning needs. Dialogic practice—emphasizing mutuality, presence, and co-construction of meaning—has emerged as a promising approach.

Rooted in dialogic pedagogy, disability studies, and relational learning theory, dialogic practices emphasize mutuality, presence, and collaborative sense-making. Prior research links dialogic and relational practices to students’ perceived belonging, communication confidence, and engagement—factors consistently associated with persistence in higher education, particularly for neurodivergent and otherwise marginalized learners. This literature positions dialogic practice at the convergence of pedagogical theory, psychosocial research on belonging, and neurodiversity-affirming frameworks, while leaving unresolved questions about implementation, equity, and evidentiary rigor at the institutional level.

Guiding Questions:

This article is guided by the following questions:

How is dialogic practice conceptualized in the literature on neurodiversity and belonging in higher education?

What empirical evidence exists regarding dialogic and relational interventions?

How can dialogic practices for neurodiverse students be operationalized across institutional contexts?

What limitations and constraints shape the effectiveness of dialogic practices?

Nature and Scope of the Article

This study adopts a theory-informed narrative review with an illustrative case. In this article, the OASIS program is descriptive and reflexive. Due to the absence of independent evaluation, matched comparisons, and disaggregated data with explicit attention to the limits of institutionally reported outcomes and the absence of independent causal evaluation, reported outcomes (e.g., retention, graduation, and employment) are cautious. The program’s origins, dialogic design, components, and reported outcomes, which date back 20 years, offer evolving support for students who report favorable outcomes. The University and IPEDS reported statistics illustrate a sharp contrast to national trends in college retention rates and employment for neurodiverse students. For example, institutionally reported statistics are as follows: approximately 85% retention rates, 95–100% graduation rates, ≥3.0 GPA averages, ~85% internship participation, and ~75% employment or further-study placement for graduating cohorts (IPEDS). Findings position this systematic approach as a promising institutional model for fostering connection, engagement, and dialogic learning in higher education, while highlighting the need for independent, disaggregated, long-term research.

Through a synthesis of the empirical literature on neurodiversity in higher education, student belonging, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and trauma-aware pedagogy, this article aims to integrate a situated case of a campus-wide support program. Across available sources, dialogic practices are associated with higher perceived belonging, increased communication confidence, and improved engagement; nevertheless, evidence quality is uneven and often US-centric, and dialogic efforts can reproduce inequities. I cover practical recommendations for pairing dialogic pedagogy with UDL-aligned design, mental health infrastructure, and anti-bias training, and I have conclude with a research agenda emphasizing longitudinal outcomes, intersectionality, and sustainable scaling.

2. Literature Review

The relevant peer-reviewed literature was identified across education, psychology, disability studies, and higher education journals, prioritizing work published between 2002 and 2026. Sources are based on conceptual rigor, relevance to dialogic practice or belonging, and empirical or theoretical contributions to neurodiversity-affirming postsecondary education. Non-academic sources are solely to contextualize demographic or enrollment trends.

2.1. The Changing Landscape of Higher Education

Neurodiversity is increasingly visible in higher education as improved identification, decreased stigma, and expanded access to assessment and support lead more students to seek accommodations and to disclose their identities. Yet, these students continue to encounter structural and cultural barriers to access, participation, and completion. Narrative and review syntheses document both the expansion of supports and persistent misalignments between student needs and available structures (Clouder et al., 2020; McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). Against this backdrop, the construct of belonging has emerged as a central determinant of persistence, engagement, and well-being, particularly for students from marginalized groups, including disabled and neurodivergent learners (Allen et al., 2022; Taff & Clifton, 2022).

Outcomes are more positive for students when a wider recognition that belonging is a central determinant of persistence and well-being for students from marginalized groups, including disabled and neurodivergent students, is evident in best practices and structured supports. It is through these types of systematic programs that a sense of belonging is a priority to approach college success holistically and through the lens of needs. According to a framework such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943), meeting one’s basic needs is a cornerstone for social and academic success. Belonging is necessary for true collegiate success in academic majors and degrees. A sense of belonging is key for self-esteem and self-actualization to occur; without addressing these needs, students will not fully engage in academic content.

2.2. Purpose and Contribution of the Article

This work analyzes how dialogic practices can support inclusion, belonging, and wellness in diverse learning ecosystems and where they may fall short. This article addresses a conceptual framework via a situated case, and practice recommendations aligned with contemporary special issue calls on dialogic practice in education. As a means of addressing the increasing need for institutions of higher education to address the specific needs and supports of neurodivergent students as well as creating an inclusive social and academic culture, this article provides best practices for achieving a deeper understanding of using dialogic practice to support a broad spectrum of students and student needs.

2.3. Dialogue as a Pedagogical Approach

Dialogue-centered approaches emphasize relationality, mutuality, and co-construction of meaning. In contrast to debate or transmission models, dialogic practices focus on presence, listening, and tolerance qualities that can scaffold executive functioning, social communication, and self-advocacy for neurodivergent learners while strengthening community for all. An analysis of this research examines how dialogic practices can support inclusion, belonging, and wellness in diverse learning ecosystems and where they may fall short. This analysis offers a conceptual framework that uses a situated case and practice recommendations aligned with contemporary special issue calls on dialogic practice in education.

The structured and consistent use of dialogic practice is a relational, reflexive, and co-constructive communication that functions as a cross-cutting design principle, carefully embedded within courses, advising/coaching, co-curricular programming, and institutional coordination. All these collaborations are critical to the overall success of a program focused on the support of neurodivergent students in higher education.

This article pursues three aims. First, a conceptual framework that differentiates dialogic practice from discussion or debate and situates it among adjacent frameworks (UDL, trauma-aware pedagogy, and disability justice). Second, an analysis of neurodiversity-specific needs and summarized empirical outcomes related to dialogic and relational interventions in higher education, including coaching, peer programs, and classroom modules. Third, the presentation of a case illustration, with specific recommendations and a future research agenda for broad implementation.

2.4. Conceptual Framework: Defining Dialogic Practice

Dialogic practice refers to a stance and sets of communicative moves that prioritize mutuality, presence, curiosity, and the co-creation of meaning. In educational contexts, dialogic facilitation privileges questions that elicit learners’ sense-making, makes uncertainty discussable, and distributes epistemic authority. This orientation differs from transmission models that prioritize correctness or debate formats that incentivize winning. For students who may fixate on correctness and respond in perceived argumentative manners, dialogic practices invite students to better understand multiple perspectives while developing content knowledge and social normative skill sets. When well facilitated, dialogic spaces can scaffold executive functioning (through guided planning talk), promote communication confidence, and surface learner strengths, all especially salient for neurodivergent students who benefit from explicit, collaborative routines (Clouder et al., 2020; Wischnewsky et al., 2024).

2.5. Dialogic Practice, Belonging, and Wellness

The notion of belonging as integral to inclusion and student success has become increasingly recognized in the field of education. A scoping synthesis highlights that facilitators of belonging include receptive climates, accessible spaces, and responsive support services (Taff & Clifton, 2022). Conceptually, among educators, belonging is the “next evolution” of inclusion; without it, inclusion remains procedural rather than lived (Allen et al., 2022). Dialogic teaching and advising contribute to belonging by normalizing help-seeking, validating identity, and distributing participation opportunities; they also offer wellness-promoting routines through attuned feedback and collaborative problem-solving (Allen et al., 2022; Taff & Clifton, 2022).

2.6. Limitations and Risks of Dialogic Approaches

While dialogic approaches supporting students socially and academically are researched and historical success evidenced, even well-developed programs can fail or even backfire if not monitored to ensure they remain evidence-based. When institutional power dynamics shape who speaks and who is heard, “open” dialogue risks re-inscribing inequities. Trauma-informed scholarship warns that relational work detached from structural analysis may become depoliticized care that overlooks the potential for systemic harm (Carello & Thompson, 2022). Recent theoretical work contends that trauma-informed practice must be explicitly racialized, with attention to how race and power shape both trauma and healing (Alvarez & Matias, 2026). Accordingly, dialogic efforts require facilitation skills, boundaries, and institutional support that make structural fixes. Dialogic practices that use trauma-informed practices are not just conversations and require specific clinician work and professionals to implement them.

2.7. Specific Focus on Neurodiversity in Higher Education

Increased Identification, Diagnosis, and Disclosure. As cited, research in the field of neurodiversity documents rising enrollment and self-disclosure among autistic and otherwise neurodivergent students alongside gender-aware understandings of ADHD and masking (Arsenault & Rich, 2026) (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/us/colleges-students-disabilities-enrollment.html, accessed on 3 April 2026). One source of this increase is the availability of early intervention; these pipelines mean students arrive with support histories and expectations of collaborative problem solving. Neurodiversity encompasses autism, ADHD/attention dysregulation, dyslexia, dyspraxia, Tourette’s, dyscalculia, and related neurotypes. Enrollment and disclosure among neurodivergent students have grown, yet supports are often fragmented, and stigmatization remains a barrier to access (Clouder et al., 2020). A rapid review of support for neurodivergent students in higher education synthesized evidence across eleven reviews and found overall modest, US-centric evidence, with a predominance of skills-focused outcomes rather than institutional or life outcomes such as completion and transition to employment (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024).

Intervention research in higher education is expanding. For example, a PLOS ONE pre–post classroom study (n = 153) found that a short neurodiversity-focused module increased awareness and self-endorsements of neurodivergent identity, though it did not shift critical consciousness of ableism, signaling both the promise and the limits of brief curricular interventions (Schwichtenberg et al., 2025). In parallel, student–staff partnership models in professional programs have shown potential to co-design more inclusive pedagogy by centering neurodivergent perspectives (Salisbury et al., 2024).

Implications for Teaching and Community Building. Students, provided with systematic opportunities to socialize into collaborative supports, benefit from predictable structures, explicit instruction, and universal design features at the course and program levels. When students have grown and developed in environments that support their needs, they come to expect it and feel confident in self-advocacy to receive the support they have come to rely on for success. Students who grow up receiving support learn to seek it and expect collaborative educational environments. Faculty development that integrates dialogic facilitation and UDL can reduce cognitive load and increase access. Additionally, these shifting demographics necessitate more inclusive, universal design-inspired pedagogies; both faculty and students with more robust exposure are typically more well suited for its implementation (Olivier & Potvin, 2021; Ren et al., 2024).

The Need for Dialogic, Neurodiversity-Affirming Approaches. Dialogic relationships scaffold executive function, help regulate affect, and build self-advocacy. Coaching conversations, peer groups, and cross-unit coordination are critical vehicles for this work. Communication and relationship-building are foundational for supporting executive functioning, social–emotional regulation, and academic persistence (Olivier & Potvin, 2021; Ren et al., 2024).

2.8. Case Study Context: The OASIS Program

The OASIS program is an institutionally embedded support model for neurodivergent students enrolled in standard credit-bearing degree programs. The program integrates academic coaching, facilitated social coordination, and vocational preparation, with dialogic interaction functioning as a core design principle across services. Although the OASIS program is discussed in detail, this article does not evaluate program effectiveness nor advocate for replication. Instead, the case examines reflexively to illuminate design logic, institutional conditions, and boundary constraints associated with dialogic, relationship-intensive approaches in higher education. The analysis of this program is based on descriptive indicators rather than evidence of program impact, given the absence of independent evaluation, matched comparison groups, and disaggregated analyses. This is due to limitations of comparable programs and publicly available data points.

The OASIS program, founded at Pace University by autism-education scholar Dianne Berkell Zager, Professor in Autism, was part of a broader initiative that included the Center for Teaching and Research in Autism. Zager also authored an early manual on educating college students with autism, providing a conceptual foundation for classroom and co-curricular practices (Zager et al., 2013).

The program, described as an evidence-informed support model in which students are “students first,” enrolled in standard, credit-bearing courses (there are no curricular modifications as part of this program), with accommodations and intensive wraparound supports. The OASIS program, similar to other ADA-focused supports, is a student-led process in which students self-select participation in the program. Students may discontinue at any time; admission and continuation at the university are not contingent on students remaining in the program; rather, the approach is for support and evidence-based access. Each student collaborates with an interdisciplinary team. Each role relies on dialogic interactions through one-on-one coaching, group facilitation, and employer-facing communication support. The program emphasizes daily or almost daily dialogic coaching, predictable routines, and collaborative problem-solving. Participating students engage fully in campus life and may live in residence halls alongside peers. While the program’s origins were small, the current program averages 85–100 students annually, and most continue participation until graduation. All applicants in the program complete an interview and submit a recent neuropsychological evaluation to determine if this specific program and its support are appropriate for the student applying.

2.9. Program Goals and Outcomes Relevant to Dialogic Practice

Core goals of the program include term-to-term retention through collaborative academic coaching; belonging via facilitated social coordination; development of self-advocacy and independence; and communication skill-building across academic and workplace settings. Across the literature, dialogic and relational interventions link to perceived belonging, communication confidence, and proximal self-regulatory skills. A scoping study of inclusion/belonging identifies institutional facilitators (receptivity, accessible spaces, support services) that dialogic programs can help operationalize (Taff & Clifton, 2022). Conceptual synthesis further positions belonging as foundational to inclusion, implying that relational practices are not adjunctive but core to inclusive outcomes (Allen et al., 2022).

For neurodiversity-specific interventions in higher education, the evidence base is expanding yet methodologically limited. Reviews find modest effects with small samples, a focus on autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and attention deficit-hyperactive disorder (ADHD), and emphasis on skills rather than degree completion or post-graduation outcomes (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). In-class modules can shift awareness quickly (Schwichtenberg et al., 2025), while student–staff partnerships generate practice changes that align with social approaches to inclusion (Salisbury et al., 2024). These strands suggest that dialogic practices can reliably shape climates and competencies; however, longer time horizons and stronger designs are needed to link them to persistence and completion.

While these data are institution-reported, they are consistent with the model’s design and broader evidence that relationship-rich environments and structured support can bolster belonging and engagement—predictors of persistence for neurodivergent and other marginalized students.

3. Methods: Design and Analytical Approach

This study adopts a theory-informed narrative review design complemented by an illustrative institutional case. Narrative synthesis is appropriate for integrating diverse literatures, identifying conceptual linkages, and generating interpretive insight rather than estimating causal effects or program impact. Dialogic practice serves as the central analytic lens across the literature review and institutional illustration. The OASIS program at Pace University is a descriptive institutional case due to its longevity and explicit emphasis on dialogic, relational practices across academic, social, and vocational domains. The case is illustrative rather than evaluative and is not evidence of effectiveness. Case-related information draws on publicly available program documentation and institutionally reported outcomes. These data are not independently verified or disaggregated by student identity variables, and do not support causal inference. These limitations are central analytic considerations.

3.1. Academic Coaching as Dialogic Support

To concretize the framework, the dialogic supports use a cross-unit program that integrates academic coaching, social coordination, and vocational preparation for neurodivergent undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in the program. The program focuses on providing learning support and career services and operates through dialogic touchpoints: weekly one-to-one coaching, facilitated peer groups, and iterative feedback cycles in career development that typically include the following:

Academic coach (ongoing 1:1, one-hour meetings focused on organization, task initiation, and study management).

Educational coordinator (course selection/registration support, typically a university-assigned academic advisor who works in collaboration with the Academic coach).

Housing coordinator for students residing on campus or participating in campus-sponsored housing (residential navigation and integration).

Social coordinator and social worker (social/emotional support; groups; campus integration).

Internship/career counselor (career-readiness workshops, mock interviews, and internship matching).

The primary touch point for dialogic practices in this program centers around the role and relationships students forge with their individually assigned academic coaches. In academic coaching centers, structured conversations externalize planning and task initiation; weekly conversations scaffold executive functioning, problem-solving, and communication skills; warm handoffs to tutoring, counseling, and accessibility services enact interprofessional dialogue.

Collaboration is a key to academic success; the university Learning Commons provides support by both trained peer tutors and professional learning specialists, counseling, and accessibility services enact interprofessional dialogue. Social programming cultivates perspective taking and conflict navigation, while vocational coaching uses dialogic assessments, mock interviews, and reflection to support disclosure decisions and workplace communication. These routines mirror evidence clusters identified in reviews, mentoring/coaching, psychological supports, and comprehensive programs, even as rigorous outcome research on retention and graduation remains limited (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024).

In weekly 30–50 min sessions, strengths-based conversations scaffold task initiation, planning, and reflective problem-solving, backward design planning (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), and reflective prompts to help students scaffold executive functions (planning, prioritizing, and monitoring). Empirically, reviews catalogue mentoring/coaching as a common component of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) (Olivier & Potvin, 2021; Ren et al., 2024) and Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) (Olivier & Potvin, 2021; Ren et al., 2024) support; however, studies often report proximal outcomes (organization or self-regulation) rather than completion metrics, underscoring an evidence gap (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). Parallel well-being research suggests that addressing impostor feelings through efficacy- and resilience-building pathways can improve life satisfaction, providing a plausible mechanism for dialogic coaching to influence persistence (Ménard et al., 2026).

3.2. Social Programming as Dialogic Community Building

In addition to individual 1:1 ongoing academic coaching, social coordinators support students through dialogic social group workshops that cultivate perspective-taking, interpersonal communication, and conflict navigation. Topics using shared interests, such as self-selected interest groups or hobby/interest-based clubs, create social interactions. Dialogic facilitation supports belonging among neurodivergent peers. These facilitated peer groups and workshops cultivate perspective-taking, conflict navigation, and collaborative decision-making to build connection among neurodivergent peers. The development of micro-communities where communication norms are explicit, turn-taking is scaffolded, and conflict is navigated with agreed protocols in a “safe space” among other participating students who are also developing these skills prior to engaging in mixed groups in social environments, allowing participating students to master new skills without potential judgments.

As part of a scaffolding structure embedded into the program, these social dialogic interactions follow Vygotsky’s (1939) Theory of Cognitive Development and the Zone of Proximal Development. Following the introduction and subsequent mastery of social skills, students generalize skills with neurotypical classmates in both spontaneous communication (lunch in the dining hall) and contrived social settings such as group work or student clubs.

Although rigorous research on social programming is sparse, adjacent campus basic-needs interventions show that shared meal contexts can elevate satisfaction with the social space, hinting at ingredients for connection even when short-term loneliness does not shift (Kurotani et al., 2026). Student–staff partnership cases further suggest that co-designed activities can surface design barriers and enhance inclusion in program curricula (Salisbury et al., 2024).

3.3. Vocational Coaching as Dialogic Professional Development

To prepare participating students to be part of a competitive job market, the program is strongly rooted in vocational coaching, which for the purposes of rehearsal and skill mastery, beginning in each student’s freshman or first year. Vocational coaching iteratively aligns interests with opportunities via conversational assessment, portfolio creation, and feedback. Iterative dialogues occur via interest inventories, mock interviews, and feedback loops that support workplace communication, disclosure decisions, and job-site navigation. Vocational coaches employ various supports, such as the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) interview software created by Pace University students and faculty to provide multiple opportunities to troubleshoot potentially challenging interactions; students then engage in dialogic reflections in both small groups and 1:1 with the vocational coach.

Through synthesized internal data as well as publicly available documentation regarding the program overview, Pace Path/Employment Readiness pages, and public reporting data, which is redacted, this research triangulated these materials with independent articles noting program history and with the peer-reviewed literature on neurodiversity in higher education, belonging, UDL, and trauma-aware practice. Employment readiness combines academics, experiential learning, mentorship, and individualized goal setting. Focused internship/career sequencing begins as early as the first year and includes strengths/interest exploration, resume development, mock interviews, employment-readiness workshops, and internship matching with Career Services and external partners. National IPEDS reports, as well as university-published data, illustrate strong outcomes at the program level, including high retention rates; graduation rates; average GPA ≥ 3.0; internship participation; and above national averages for employment or enrollment in further education. The autism society (https://autismsociety.org/employment/, accessed on 3 April 2026) cites that unemployment rates for individuals with ASD and other neurodivergences are as high as 85%. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Labor cites the general labor rate of people with disabilities, ages 16–64, to have been 41.8% in 2025, compared to 78% for non-disabled people in the same age range (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/research-evaluation/statistics, accessed on 3 April 2026). Students and families have reported that the individualized 1:1 coaching and social/emotional supports are key drivers of these outcomes.

Additionally, employment rates for 12 months following graduation demonstrate a range of 70–80% employment rates, which is a sharp contrast to cited statistics for adults with autism spectrum disorders and related neurodivergences, which cite an average employment rate of just 15–20% (Autism Society of America, n.d.).

While direct higher education evidence on employment endpoints remains thin, related analyses in disability employment contexts indicate that counseling models integrating technology and explicit communication supports can produce meaningful gains in access to professional/technical roles and earnings, suggesting pathways to positive work identities post-graduation (Ejoh, 2026).

3.4. Dialogic Principles Across Institutional Ecosystems

Historically, higher education hosts systemic coordination as a form of dialogue across institutional silos. To remove these silos, which can create an additional burden for those supporting neurodivergent student populations, the University model and the OASIS program’s approach to cross-departmental collaboration (Career Services, Learning Commons, and Student Activities) suggests dialogic systems-building that reduces institutional siloing and increases coherence for students, staff, and faculty across departments.

Beyond direct services, dialogic coordination across learning support, counseling, and career services reduces silo effects and increases referral clarity. Faculty development in UDL-aligned dialogic facilitation can augment these efforts: small postsecondary faculty development pilots report growth in awareness of barriers and willingness to implement UDL principles, indicating feasible levers for scaling relationally attuned design (Olivier & Potvin, 2021). A recent scoping review of UDL in higher education also underscores recurring implementation ambiguities and measurement gaps—highlighting the need for clearer operationalization when pairing UDL with dialogic pedagogy (Ren et al., 2024).

3.5. Research Agenda

Priority studies include longitudinal, multi-cohort evaluations of OASIS-like programs; quasi-experimental designs comparing participating students to matched non-participants; intersectional analyses of access and outcomes; ethnographies of coaching and social programming to identify high-leverage facilitation moves; and implementation research clarifying how to scale elements (e.g., coaching dosage and staff mix) without diluting effects.

4. Interpreted Outcomes of the Case Study

During the 20-year OASIS program, the relationally grounded coaching in the program aligned with improved credit completion and persistence. Pace University publicly reports an approximately 85% retention rate and a 95–100% graduation rate for OASIS students as of the most recent 2024 reporting data to both NYSED and the federal Department of Education via the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), alongside average GPAs of 3.0 or higher. These outcomes suggest strong term-to-term engagement and effective credit momentum towards graduation and degree completion.

Daily one-hour academic coaching, coordination across housing, social, and educational supports, and structured communication with students create a relational ecosystem known to support persistence. Such structures are consistent with broader higher-education research identifying belonging, coaching, and integrated supports as predictors of persistence (Sources: OASIS About Us page; the literature on neurodiversity and belonging).

4.1. Increased Self-Advocacy and Independence

Dialogic coaching strengthens student agency in navigating academic accommodations, course planning, and career development. The OASIS model includes individualized coaching, social–emotional support, and career readiness programming, beginning as early as freshman year. These practices reinforce self-advocacy by embedding reflective conversations, strength identification, and problem-solving routines (Source: Pace Path Employment Readiness).

Students engage regularly with academic coaches, social workers, and career specialists, enabling them to articulate needs, seek support proactively, and gain independent management skills. Such dialogic and structured interactions mirror evidence from neurodiversity research showing that structured relational guidance enhances autonomy and transition readiness (Salisbury et al., 2024; Schwichtenberg et al., 2025; Clouder et al., 2020; Wischnewsky et al., 2024).

4.2. Institutional Transformation

Dialogic structures embedded within daily coaching, cross-unit collaboration, and social–emotional supports model a campus-wide approach to neuro-inclusion. Publicly available program descriptions show that OASIS integrates Academic Coaching, Housing Coordination, Social Coordination, Social Work, and Career Services into a coherent support system, promoting shared language and collaborative problem-solving.

These practices demonstrate how relationally grounded support can shape institutional culture by normalizing neurodiversity-affirming communication and cross-department coordination. As the university expands neurodiversity support across campuses through state-funded initiatives, the OASIS model informs broader cultural shifts toward inclusion and accessibility (Sources: Pace University news on expanding neurodiverse supports).

4.3. Implications for Institutional Practice

Priority directions include the following: (a) longitudinal, multi-institutional studies that track dialogic interventions’ effects on retention, degree completion, and employment; (b) intersectional analyses that examine how race, gender, disability, and class shape participation and outcomes within dialogic spaces; (c) micro-ethnographies of facilitation that identify “high-yield” moves linked to engagement and belonging; and (d) implementation research that clarifies how UDL and dialogic designs may be carefully operationalized and measured with reliability (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024; Ren et al., 2024). However, these approaches alone or siloed do not provide the wraparound supports often needed for long-term and lasting success.

Institutions seeking to adapt OASIS should do the following: (1) build interdisciplinary coaching teams with daily touchpoints; (2) integrate residential, social, and career scaffolding; (3) align with an institutional pathway (e.g., Pace Path) that sequences experiential learning and mentoring; (4) embed UDL-aligned course design and dialogic facilitation training for faculty/staff; (5) implement routine assessment of belonging and engagement, linked to credit momentum and persistence; and (6) publish disaggregated outcomes and engage external evaluators to study causal impacts and cost-effectiveness.

4.4. Tensions, Limitations, and Equity Considerations

Despite promising outcomes, limitations warrant caution. Dialogic efforts can falter when structural barriers (inaccessible course policies, assessment rigidity, and under-resourced services) constrain participation. Three strands of scholarship help explain OASIS results and boundary conditions. First, research on neurodiversity in higher education documents growth in enrollment and persistent misalignments between needs and support, calling for comprehensive, coordinated approaches (Clouder et al., 2020; McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). Trauma-aware guidance emphasizes the importance of predictable structures, boundaries, and referral pathways to avoid placing therapeutic burdens on faculty or students (Carello & Thompson, 2022; Elon University Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, 2020). Moreover, “open dialogue” in classrooms that sidestep race and power can inadvertently burden students of color, reinforcing inequities; trauma-informed practice must be explicitly racialized to be transformative (Alvarez & Matias, 2026).

First, publicly reported outcomes are not disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, or neurotype; intersectional analyses are crucial to ensure the model equitably serves multiply marginalized students. Second, there are no published, independent evaluations linking participation to long-term outcomes (e.g., five-year graduation, employment quality, earnings, and well-being) relative to matched comparison groups. Third, intensive, high-touch models may create staff time burdens (“dialogic overload”) and constraints on capacity, raising issues around who participates in the program. Finally, sustaining comprehensive support requires predictable funding and cross-unit coordination; Pace’s recent NYSED grant to expand neurodiversity services across campuses suggests one pathway for scaling selected components.

A second tension is dialogic overload: conversation-rich practices require time, attentional energy, and emotional labor. Programs should rotate facilitation roles, set session limits, and provide recovery time. Finally, evidence translation remains a challenge: UDL research points to implementation ambiguity and measurement inconsistency (Ren et al., 2024), and neurodiversity support reviews highlight the need for outcomes beyond skills, namely retention, GPA, credit momentum, and post-graduation employment (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). The belonging literature contends that inclusion is hollow without a subjective sense of “mattering,” and identifies institutional facilitators (receptive climates, accessible spaces, and responsive services) that the OASIS program operationalizes through coaching, housing/social coordination, and career scaffolding (Allen et al., 2022; Taff & Clifton, 2022). Students report increased belonging and communication confidence when engaged in dialogic support; relationship-rich environments are associated with stronger engagement. Students self-reported increases in belonging and communication confidence.

Third, trauma-aware and racialized perspectives on pedagogy caution that dialogic relationships require boundaries, predictable structures, and attention to power to avoid burdening students and staff and to prevent reproducing inequities (Carello & Thompson, 2022; Alvarez & Matias, 2026).

Aligned with UDL-informed practice, OASIS uses multiple means of engagement and expression (e.g., multimodal study planning, social groups, and internship preparation) while maintaining academic rigor (no course modification). Small HE faculty-development studies show UDL uptake is feasible, though implementation and measurement need clarity—an agenda relevant for institutions building OASIS-like ecosystems (Olivier & Potvin, 2021; Ren et al., 2024).

4.5. When Dialogue Falls Short for All Students

Interpersonal dialogue cannot remedy inaccessible policies, rigid curricula, or under-resourced services without structural change; dialogic efforts strain staff and students. Interpersonal dialogue cannot overcome systemic inequities (e.g., inaccessible policies and curriculum rigidity). Pace University suggests a strong commitment yes to a UDL framework as well as continued access for staff and faculty to professional development opportunities focused on supporting the diverse needs of students; the nature of pre-professional and professional degree programs at times presents accreditation barriers that create rigid curricula based on a third party. Their systematic inequalities reach far beyond the ecosystem of the university and remain an impediment preventing students from pursuing heavily monitored and rigid career paths and majors of study.

While power struggles are rare and addressed on an ongoing basis, the nature of collaboration can create questions in the dynamic of who does what and when. Coach, administrator, and faculty roles confer differential authority that can silence voices; attention to facilitation, transparency, and shared decision-making is necessary. Institutional roles (coach, administrator, and faculty) shape who gets to speak and who feels heard. This is why a clear and comprehensive plan in which roles are closely structured, communicated, and implemented becomes critical for program and student success.

Students with high communication anxiety or trauma histories may require alternative modalities (asynchronous reflection, chat, and written planning) to engage equitably. Students with higher communication anxiety, selective mutism, or trauma histories may experience dialogic support differently. While the program initially supported admitted students with “high functioning autism” during its foundational years, the terms neurodiversity and neurodivergent have expanded. Additionally, the presence of co-morbidity in newer diagnoses means that the OASIS student population has expanded, not just in sheer numbers (N = 40 to N = 85–100); it has also expanded student diagnosis and presentation. What was once a closed system narrowly focused and rooted in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) has expanded to meet the new and variable needs of a new student population and demographic. Because the research into the best support for neurodiverse students is continually evolving, new methods of support may not work for students with outlier presentations. While this number remains low, it is evidence that not every student will experience the same outcomes and self-identified measure of success.

Continuous conversation-based practices can create emotional labor and fatigue; scheduling, boundaries, and rotation of roles mitigate overload. Emotional labor is required of students and staff in constant conversation-based practices. Running a sustainable program does require both high-level budget management and the ability of the institution to accept that a program such as OASIS is expensive and will potentially operate at a monetary loss. It is important that the institutional structure allows for revenue-loss programs prior to implementation to appropriately support students and meet program expectations. This program model requires budget, staffing ratios, and sustainability to limit scalability; data-informed prioritization and phased implementation are important. Budgetary realities, staffing ratios, and sustainability challenges limit the full realization of dialogic ideals.

5. Discussion

5.1. Integrating Dialogic Theory with Neurodiversity-Affirming Pedagogy

Dialogic practice offers a powerful complement to neurodiversity-affirming teaching frameworks by centering relationship, flexibility, and co-constructed meaning-making, core needs identified in contemporary higher-education research. In neurodiverse learning environments, dialogic approaches align strongly with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, which seek to provide multiple means of engagement and expression while acknowledging the heterogeneity of learner needs (Olivier & Potvin, 2021; Ren et al., 2024). They also resonate with trauma-aware pedagogies that emphasize predictability, attunement, and shared agency in classroom and advising relationships (Carello & Thompson, 2022). Moreover, dialogic practice shares commitments with disability-justice frameworks, which foreground interdependence, relational care, and the recognition of disabled people as knowledge-holders rather than those with deficits we must fix (Clouder et al., 2020).

Together, these strands position dialogic pedagogy as an integrative approach that not only supports cognitive access but also affirms identity, autonomy, and belonging factors shown to be central predictors of persistence for disabled and neurodivergent students (Allen et al., 2022; Taff & Clifton, 2022).

While dialogue holds transformative potential, the literature is clear that it is not inherently liberatory. Dialogue can cultivate connection, agency, and shared understanding, especially for neurodivergent learners who benefit from explicit relational scaffolding and collaborative meaning-making (Wischnewsky et al., 2024). However, without attention to power, positionality, and institutional resource structures, dialogic spaces may unintentionally reproduce inequities. Trauma-informed and racialized pedagogical frameworks caution that unreflective “open dialogue” can silence marginalized students or place undue emotional burden on them, particularly when educators lack the training or institutional support necessary for facilitating such conversations equitably (Alvarez & Matias, 2026; Carello & Thompson, 2022).

To avoid these risks, scholars recommend pairing dialogic practice with institutional commitments to accessibility, mental health infrastructure, and anti-bias professional development. UDL research similarly argues that dialogic and flexible participation structures require systematic implementation, reliable measurement, and organization-level support if they are to achieve equitable outcomes across diverse learners (Ren et al., 2024). In neurodiversity-affirming contexts, dialogue occurs within broader systems of accommodation, coordinated care, and culturally responsive practices ensuring that meaning-making is collaborative, rather than shaped by existing asymmetries of power.

5.2. Recommendations for Practice

The synthesized literature suggests that dialogic practices can meaningfully support students’ sense of belonging, agency, and engagement when embedded within structurally supportive institutional environments. However, dialogic approaches are not inherently equitable or transformative. Without careful attention to power dynamics, resource distribution, and structural constraints, dialogic practices may reproduce inequities or generate unintended emotional labor for students and staff. The OASIS case suggests both the promise and the limits of high-touch, relationship-intensive models. While the program may suggest how dialogic practices may be operationalized across academic, social, and vocational domains, its resource intensity raises critical questions regarding scalability, sustainability, and equitable access across diverse institutional contexts.

This program does require investment in dialogic facilitation training across roles (faculty, advisors/coaches, and peer leaders), emphasizing turn-taking scaffolds, explicit norms, and multimodal participation. The paired dialogic routines work in tandem with UDL-aligned course design (clear organization, chunked tasks, and flexible modalities) and with referral infrastructure to counseling, accessibility, and career services (Olivier & Potvin, 2021; Elon University Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, 2020).

5.3. Implications for Future Research

Priority directions include the following: (a) longitudinal, multi-institutional studies that track dialogic interventions’ effects on retention, degree completion, and employment; (b) intersectional analyses that examine how race, gender, disability, and class shape participation and outcomes within dialogic spaces; (c) micro-ethnographies of facilitation that identify “high-yield” moves linked to engagement and belonging; and (d) implementation research that clarifies how UDL and dialogic designs may be carefully operationalized and measured with reliability (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024; Ren et al., 2024).

5.4. Tracking Persistence, Completion, and Well-Being over Time

Current reviews highlight that most studies of neurodivergent students support measuring short-term skills gains, with minimal tracking of retention, degree completion, or employment outcomes (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). This gap is significant given the OASIS program reports high graduation and employment rates, but these data have not been independently verified or compared with matched comparison groups. Longitudinal, multi-institutional studies need to examine how dialogic coaching, social coordination, and career-readiness programs influence persistence, credit momentum, psychological well-being, and post-graduation trajectories over multiple years.

Such studies should also incorporate cost-effectiveness analyses, an increasingly important dimension for institutions considering resource-intensive coaching models. The literature on UDL and inclusive pedagogy suggests that sustained outcomes depend on predictable, well-resourced structures (Olivier & Potvin, 2021), and trauma-aware teaching frameworks stress the necessity of durable institutional commitments rather than isolated interventions (Carello & Thompson, 2022). Longitudinal research can, therefore, clarify not only whether dialogic interventions work, but what institutional conditions allow them to produce lasting change.

5.5. Intersectionality: Understanding Who Benefits and Why

Scholars argue that belonging, access, and persistence are the interaction of race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, and other identity markers (Allen et al., 2022; Taff & Clifton, 2022). Yet most neurodiversity programs, including those reviewed by McDowall and Kiseleva (2024), lack disaggregated outcome data. The same is true of publicly reported OASIS data, which highlight overall success but do not specify how outcomes vary across intersecting identities.

Future research must, therefore, adopt intersectional methodologies that illuminate which students thrive within dialogic spaces and which may face additional barriers. Trauma-aware, racialized pedagogical research underscores that dialogic practice can inadvertently reproduce inequalities when systemic power dynamics go unaddressed (Alvarez & Matias, 2026). Intersectional studies would enable institutions to refine coaching, advising, and group facilitation to meet the needs of students who experience multiple forms of marginalization, rather than assuming universal benefit.

5.6. Understanding Institutional Capacity and Adaptation

UDL-focused research highlights persistent ambiguity regarding implementation, fidelity, and scalability (Ren et al., 2024). Likewise, trauma-aware frameworks warn against overburdening faculty or student-facing staff with emotional labor without adequate support and structure (Carello & Thompson, 2022). OASIS itself is a resource-intensive model, providing daily coaching, interdisciplinary teams, and coordinated housing and career support, and its high retention and graduation rates illustrate what is possible when such structures are well resourced.

Future research should, therefore, investigate what institutional strategies allow dialogic, relationally grounded support to scale without compromising quality. Key questions include the following:

How can institutions maintain staff well-being and prevent “dialogic overload”?

What staffing models—professional, peer, and hybrid—maintain impact while reducing resource strain?

Which elements of high-touch programs like OASIS are essential, and which may be carefully adapted into lighter-weight models?

How do cross-unit collaborations (e.g., between advising, accessibility services, housing, and career offices) support sustainability?

Implementation studies that examine these questions across multiple institutional contexts would clarify the degrees of flexibility and fidelity required to maintain impact while ensuring feasibility.

6. Conclusions

Dialogic practice offers a compelling framework for advancing inclusion and belonging for neurodivergent students in higher education when paired with structurally supportive institutional systems. Through a theory-informed narrative synthesis and reflexive institutional case, this article underscores both the potential and the limitations of dialogic approaches. Future research should prioritize longitudinal, comparative, and intersectional designs capable of evaluating dialogic models across varied institutional settings, with particular attention to equity, sustainability, and institutional context.