About

My work looks at how systems decide who is expected to participate, whose knowledge is valued, and what counts as quality.

Rather than treating neurodiversity as an exception to be managed, my work approaches difference as a normal condition of contemporary work, learning, and cultural life and as a signal of where systems need redesign.

The name reflects how the work operates.

Access names the aim: enabling meaningful access to knowledge, participation, and recognition. Not as a technical fix or an accommodation, but as a question of design, how learning environments, cultural spaces, and organisations are structured, and how people move within them.

Archer describes the method. Learning is not linear, and change does not happen all at once. The work is directional and iterative: meeting students, teams, and institutions where they are, and supporting movement toward the next point of understanding. This requires judgement, calibration, and adjustment over time, rather than one-off interventions or checklists.

Taken together, Access Archer reflects a learning design approach that builds on what we know about neurodiversity and takes it further. It asks not only how people gain access to systems, but how they come to recognise their own role in shaping them, moving beyond awareness toward shared responsibility and practice.

Access Archer is a way of connecting theory with practice: translating research into learning, and learning into design.

My work sits at the intersection of psychology, education, ethics, and critical theory. It draws on long-standing experience in publishing and institutional collaboration to explore how access to learning, culture, and participation is shaped in practice.

I approach this work across three connected levels.

At the individual level, I think about neurodiversity as personal range: the distinctive mix of cognitive, emotional, and social capacities each person brings. Difference here is not only a demographic, but a form of human and social capital.

At the level of teams, I look at how collaboration and interdependence are designed. Some environments allow that range to function and expand; others quietly constrain it. Friction, in this context, becomes a source of information about how work is organised.

At the organisational level, I examine the cultural logic that determines who is expected, who is heard, and who is able to learn without effort. These patterns are often invisible, but they shape participation as much as formal policy.

Across all three levels, I treat access as a form of learning. Rather than asking how individuals can adapt to existing systems, I use neurodiversity as a way of understanding how knowledge is produced and shared. When a system struggles to offer opportunities to neurodivergent talent, it is rarely an individual problem. It is a signal about the limits of the system’s learning design.

The outcome of this work is a shift in focus. Away from fixing people, and toward shaping conditions. It helps individuals understand and use their own range, supports teams to work productively with difference, and guides institutions to design environments where participation is expected, not negotiated.