One of the hardest parts of writing the report was making the primary research and literature feel like one argument rather than two separate projects.

I did not want to write a literature review, add participant quotes later and assume the relationship between them was obvious. I needed the different forms of evidence to actively question, reinforce or complicate one another.

Bringing Different Evidence Together

A useful way of thinking about this was through triangulation.

Published research could establish wider patterns and concepts. Airport case studies could show what is currently provided. Participant responses could then reveal how those systems are actually experienced by autistic adults travelling independently.

Each source type answers a slightly different question, so the strength comes from bringing them together rather than treating one as automatically more 'real' than the others.

Participant Voice Should Be Able to Change the Argument

I also needed to avoid using participant responses only to confirm what I had already read.

The primary research becomes more valuable when it exposes something that the literature or existing provision does not fully resolve.

For example, an airport may advertise a quiet or sensory space as an accessibility intervention, while a participant can explain why that space still feels too open, loud or unsuitable for their needs.

The participant voice should not decorate the academic argument; it should be capable of changing it.

Keeping Evidence Types Clear

At the same time, I need to be careful about what each source can support.

Ten participant responses do not establish prevalence. An airport webpage can show what support is advertised but not prove that it works. A technology paper can establish technical possibility without demonstrating that the same system would be appropriate for autistic airport travel.

Keeping those distinctions visible helps the report remain critical.

How This Changed the Writing

This is why I decided to integrate participant evidence and published research throughout the Findings and Discussion rather than presenting them as completely separate sections.

A participant quotation can introduce a lived experience, published literature can place that experience within a wider pattern, and my analysis can then identify what that relationship means for the design problem.

Primary research, secondary research and existing practice should converge on the design problem rather than sit beside one another as separate evidence collections.

This gave me a much clearer method for writing the discussion and stopped the participant data from becoming a standalone results section with little connection to the wider research.