The methodology section needed to explain not only what I did, but why the chosen approach was appropriate for the research question.

My primary research consisted of written semi-structured responses from ten adults on the autism spectrum. I then analysed the responses using reflexive thematic analysis.

Why Written Responses

Written participation was useful because it allowed participants to respond in their own time without the pressure of a live interview.

For a project concerned with autistic experience, communication and autonomy, I felt it was important not to assume that a spoken interview was automatically the most appropriate format.

The written format also allowed me to ask consistent core questions while still leaving enough space for participants to describe individual experiences in detail.

Reflexive Thematic Analysis

Braun and Clarke became the main methodological foundation for the analysis.

I used reflexive thematic analysis because I was interested in recurring patterns across the responses while still recognising that interpretation is part of the research process.

The process involved reading the full dataset, organising the responses into a spreadsheet, coding recurring ideas, grouping related codes and then refining the developing themes against the original responses.

I did not want to decide the final themes before reading the data.

The themes needed to be developed through engagement with what participants actually said rather than used as boxes that responses were forced into.

Coding and Theme Development

Early codes included ideas around control, unpredictability, sensory demands, support, self-regulation and changing systems.

These were then grouped and refined into the four wider strands used within the report.

Keeping participant quotations attached to the codes was useful because it made it easier to check whether my interpretation still reflected the original response.

Researcher Interpretation

The methodology also needs to acknowledge that thematic analysis is not completely neutral.

My own position, design interests and prior reading influence what I notice within the dataset. Rather than pretending that this interpretation does not exist, reflexive thematic analysis requires me to be aware of it.

This is especially relevant because I have a personal connection to autism through my sister and a clear design interest in independence and accessibility.

Limitations

The sample is small and cannot represent all autistic adults.

The participants also differ in age, gender and experience, and written responses do not allow the same immediate follow-up that a live semi-structured interview might provide.

I therefore need to present the findings as qualitative insight into recurring experiences rather than as statistically generalisable evidence.

What the Methodology Needs to Do

The methodology should remain concise.

I do not need to explain the entire history of thematic analysis. I need to show that the method was selected deliberately, applied systematically and interpreted with appropriate caution.

The methodology establishes how I moved from individual participant responses to the arguments used later in the report.

Key Terminology

Semi-structured research — research organised around core questions while still allowing participants to expand on issues that matter to them.

Reflexive thematic analysis — an interpretive approach to identifying and developing patterns of meaning within qualitative data.

Coding — labelling sections of data according to ideas or meanings relevant to the research question.

Theme development — grouping and refining patterns across coded data into broader concepts that help answer the research question.

Researcher reflexivity — recognising how the researcher's own position and interpretation influence qualitative analysis.