Nothing about us without us: the politics of outing in academia

Purpose Calls for reflexivity and insider voice are now well established within qualitative organisational research. However, such calls often presume conditions in which disclosure is safe and epistemically rewarded. This article examines how reflexivity can function as a site of professional risk for neurodivergent scholars within academic institutions. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on evocative autoethnography, the article analyses a series of narrative scenes from doctoral and early-career academic contexts. These scenes are examined alongside critical literatures on reflexivity, epistemic injustice, disclosure, and organisational voice to explore how legitimacy and credibility are negotiated. Findings The analysis shows how language correction, tone regulation and conditional visibility shape decisions about disclosure. Rather than treating outing as a discrete ethical act or moral imperative, the article demonstrates how it emerges as a negotiated response to structurally uneven credibility economies. The findings highlight how non-disclosure may function as a form of risk management, while simultaneously enabling non-autistic actors to speak on behalf of autistic people. Social implications Without structural change, inclusion efforts risk reproducing epistemic injustice by rewarding those who can safely perform legitimacy. Recognising and supporting non-disclosed scholars is vital for equity in academic labour and knowledge production. Originality/value The article contributes to debates on reflexivity in qualitative research by reframing disclosure as a structurally conditioned dilemma rather than an individual ethical choice. It introduces the concepts of ambiguous visibility and distanced self-advocacy to capture how neurodivergent scholars navigate the tension between voice and safety. In doing so, it challenges disclosure-based models of reflexivity and argues for approaches that recognise silence, restraint and translation as legitimate reflexive practices rather than methodological failures.