Research In Practice: Neurodiversity Spark - Case Study

Applied research led by Prof April Hargreaves, strengthening ethical neuroinclusive education practice

Context

Following the delivery of a multi-partner digital skills programme for neurodivergent adults (see Case Study 1), Neurodiversity Spark undertook a programme of applied research connected to adult education experiences at Belfast Metropolitan College.

The research re-engaged participants from the original programme cohort, inviting them back into a reflective research process focused on understanding barriers to education, confidence-building, and re-entry into learning. This approach recognised the cumulative impact of prior educational exclusion, as well as the wider Northern Ireland context, where historical trauma and systemic barriers continue to shape adult education experiences.

This research forms part of Spark’s wider research activity and lab partnership with ICEP Europe and is led by Spark’s Director of Research, Professor April Hargreaves.

Spark’s role

Neurodiversity Spark designed and delivered the full research programme, operating clearly alongside — not within — service delivery. The work was led by Prof April Hargreaves and delivered under Spark’s research governance framework.

Spark was responsible for:

  • research design and methodology
  • ethics approval, consent, and safeguarding
  • governance and boundary management
  • participant engagement and qualitative data collection
  • analysis focused on learning and practice improvement

 

Participants were drawn from the earlier delivery cohort, enabling the research to explore lived experience over time rather than capturing isolated snapshots.

How Spark undertakes ethical, applied research led by academic expertise and grounded in lived experience.

Approach

The research was grounded in lived experience, trauma-aware practice, and participatory methods. Particular care was taken to ensure that participation was voluntary, informed, and clearly separated from any service provision.

Clear boundaries were maintained between:

  • programme delivery
  • research activity
  • organisational learning and improvement

 

This separation ensured ethical integrity and avoided conflating research participation with service outcomes or performance claims.

Analysis is ongoing, with findings expected to be completed and shared in mid-2026. Outputs are intended to strengthen practice, governance, and understanding of neuroinclusive adult education pathways rather than generate external marketing claims.

Outcome

The research has already supported deeper reflective practice within Spark and strengthened internal understanding of how neurodivergent adults experience re-engagement with education over time.

Emerging learning is contributing to:

  • a stronger ethical evidence base for programme design
  • improved understanding of trust, confidence, and disengagement in adult learners
  • clearer governance frameworks for research-linked delivery
  • funder-safe research practice grounded in lived experience

Going forward

As analysis continues into 2026, findings from this research will inform Spark’s future delivery, training, and partnership work across education and employment pathways.

Learning will be used to:

  • refine trauma-informed engagement approaches
  • strengthen ethical decision-making in programme design
  • inform future research partnerships and evaluations
  • contribute to wider sector understanding of neurodivergent adult education barriers

 

Findings will be shared in accessible formats that prioritise learning and improvement over promotion, with full attention to consent, anonymity, and participant safety.

What this demonstrates

This case study demonstrates Spark’s ability to:

  • lead ethically governed, funder-safe research
  • maintain clear boundaries between research and delivery
  • conduct cohort-linked, longitudinal learning
  • prioritise evidence-informed improvement rather than performative impact
  • operate with academic, institutional, and governance credibility

This is research designed to deepen understanding and improve practice — not to sell outcomes.