Once the first round of thematic analysis was complete, I needed to decide how the primary research would actually appear in the report.

I did not want a findings section that simply listed participant comments and then a completely separate discussion section that repeated them alongside literature.

The strongest structure seemed to be one where the participant data and secondary research could be brought into conversation with one another.

Four Interconnected Strands

The analysis produced four recurring strands that became useful for structuring the discussion.

These were independence and control, changing support needs in response to unpredictability, environmental pressures on self-regulation, and fragmented travel systems.

I am deliberately thinking of these as interconnected rather than completely separate themes because the participant responses often overlap.

A change in airport procedure can increase unpredictability, which can increase cognitive and sensory demand, which can then affect regulation and the amount of support somebody needs.

Independence and Control

The first strand challenged the idea that independence means doing everything alone.

Participants described wanting support while still retaining control over the journey. This connected strongly with Bhattacharya et al. and Thompson-Hodgetts et al., whose research also frames independence and self-determination around agency, choice and support rather than complete self-sufficiency.

This became one of the most important arguments in the report because it directly affects how any design intervention should behave.

Changing Support Needs

The second strand concerned unpredictability and changes to expected structure.

Participant responses repeatedly described delays, altered routines and unexpected changes as difficult. This linked to the wider literature around predictability, sensory reactivity and perceived control.

The design implication is that support needs cannot be assumed to remain stable throughout the whole journey.

The same traveller may need different levels or forms of support at different moments.

Environmental Pressure and Regulation

The third strand concerned the sensoryscape and self-regulation.

Participants did not describe sensory difficulty as one isolated stimulus. Noise, crowds, space, waiting, uncertainty and lack of recovery could accumulate.

This aligned closely with MacLennan et al.'s work on sensory experience in public spaces and helped me move away from thinking only about stimulus reduction.

The discussion began to focus more strongly on regulation, perceived control and opportunities to withdraw or recover.

Fragmented Travel Systems

The fourth strand was the cumulative effect of fragmentation.

Participants described airports working differently from one another and barriers layering on top of existing autistic barriers. This made the journey feel like a series of disconnected systems rather than one coherent accessibility experience.

This helped explain why one sensory room or one assistance scheme cannot necessarily solve the wider problem.

From Findings to Design Criteria

The important part was not simply naming the strands.

I needed to show what they mean when brought together.

Independence suggests that support should preserve agency. Fluctuating need suggests support should be adaptable. Sensory regulation suggests the system should avoid adding further demand. Fragmentation suggests support may need to remain coherent across different stages of the journey.

The findings therefore begin to operate as design criteria rather than only as research results.

This structure gives the discussion a clearer purpose because each section contributes directly to the emerging design proposition.