One thing I was finding difficult when beginning the report was not always knowing how to start academic sentences without repeating the same wording.

I therefore looked at the University of Manchester's Academic Phrasebank. I was not using it to write sentences for me, but as a way of understanding the different functions academic sentences need to perform.

This was particularly useful because my writing needs to do more than introduce a source. I also need to compare research, show disagreement, identify limitations, introduce my own interpretation and move between different parts of an argument.

Moving Beyond "This Paper Says..."

My early notes often began very simply with phrases such as "this paper says" or "the author found". That is useful when taking research notes, but it quickly becomes repetitive and descriptive within a 5,000-word report.

The Phrasebank helped me think about why I am introducing a source before I write the sentence.

Sometimes I am establishing what is already known. Sometimes I am showing that several researchers reach similar conclusions. At other points I need to signal a contradiction, question the strength of the evidence or explain why a finding matters specifically to my project.

The sentence opening should help show the relationship between the evidence and my argument, rather than simply announcing that I have read another paper.

Comparing Sources

This became especially useful when I started combining sources within the same paragraph.

Instead of writing one paragraph about one researcher and then moving to another, I can use the language of comparison to show where evidence agrees, extends another argument or reaches a different conclusion.

This is important for my report because many of the strongest ideas are not supported by one paper alone. Independence, sensory variability, perceived control and fluctuating support needs appear across several different studies.

The writing therefore needs to make those relationships visible.

Signalling Limitations

The Phrasebank was also useful for writing critically without making every criticism sound overly aggressive.

A limitation does not necessarily mean that a paper is bad. It may mean that the sample is small, the context is different from an airport, the participants are not autistic adults, the study is laboratory-based or the authors' conclusions cannot be generalised as widely as the paper initially suggests.

Learning to signal those limitations more carefully has helped me avoid simply accepting every source at face value.

Cautious Academic Language

Another useful area was cautious or "hedged" language.

This feels particularly relevant to the technological side of my project. Physiological information may indicate changes in arousal, but I should not write that it definitively detects sensory overload. A wearable could support regulation, but I cannot claim that it will work before testing it.

Using cautious language helps me distinguish between what the evidence demonstrates and what I am proposing as a design possibility.

Building My Own Writing Bank

Rather than copying full phrases, I started treating the resource as a reference for different writing functions.

The areas I found most useful were introducing previous research, comparing authors, showing contrast, identifying limitations, explaining significance and moving towards a conclusion.

This gave me more confidence when beginning paragraphs because I could focus on what the paragraph needed to achieve rather than becoming stuck on the first sentence.

What This Changes

The Academic Phrasebank has become a practical writing tool rather than a source for the content of the report.

It has helped me understand that academic tone comes partly from the way ideas are connected and qualified.

The goal is not to make the writing sound more complicated. It is to make the relationship between evidence, evaluation and my own argument clearer.

Key Terminology

Academic function — what a sentence is doing within an argument, such as comparing, evaluating, defining or concluding.

Hedging — using appropriately cautious language when a claim is uncertain or evidence is limited.

Signposting — language that helps the reader understand how one part of an argument connects to another.

Synthesis — bringing multiple sources together to develop one wider point rather than discussing each source separately.