Posts in this week
No posts in this week.
Ben's main message: The research and evidence are already strong enough to work with. The problem is mainly how the report is organised and argued, not a lack of content. It needs restructuring, not rewriting from scratch.
Restructure around arguments
Ben felt that separating the Literature Review from Findings and Discussion made related evidence repeat and weakened the flow. Instead, the main body should read as one connected critical discussion. Each argument should bring relevant academic literature together with participant responses, then explain what the combined evidence means and why it matters from a design perspective. Ben described the benefit as making “two punches instead of one”.
The four existing primary-research themes are possible starting points, not necessarily four fixed section titles: independence through control; unpredictability and changing support needs; the environment's effect on self-regulation; and fragmented travel systems. Ben's question on reading the paragraph that introduces them was: “Aren’t these the arguments of your essay?” The report should test whether these themes form the strongest argument sequence rather than impose them automatically.
Keep the opening; clarify the terms
Ben liked the personal introduction about independent travel and conversations with Summer. Keep this because it explains why the research matters to me. Bring the explanation of the autism spectrum, individual differences and assumptions about autistic experience closer to the beginning. The paragraph naming the four interconnected strands may be a natural place to end the introduction; material after it can be reconsidered.
Ben also distinguished methodology (the wider research approach or rationale) from methods (specific ways of collecting and analysing material). Written semi-structured responses, the literature review and reflexive thematic analysis are methods. The report should describe why I chose written responses, who took part, how I analysed them and the limitations, without allowing this to become an unnecessarily long, disconnected section.
Make the writing more substantive
The report has too many short, fragmented paragraphs. Ben's point was not simply to make them longer, but to develop one meaningful idea per paragraph: explain the claim, connect evidence, evaluate it and lead to the next point. Remove repetitions and academic-sounding sentences that do not actually say much. AI is not the issue in itself; the risk is losing clarity and my own critical judgement. The test for every paragraph is: What am I actually arguing here, and why?
Presentation and assessment
Ben recommended a restrained, professionally typeset academic document, ideally prepared in InDesign. Clear hierarchy, carefully handled diagrams and appropriate images matter more than decorative styling; it should not look like a Studio Practice portfolio. Content and argument carry greater weight than visual polish.
He was positive about the work already done. The notes record that a Merit was achievable and that limited edits might reach roughly 60–61, while a higher result would need more substantial structural improvement. These were tutorial indications, not guaranteed marks.
What I should do next
Start with one argument-led section, not a full rewrite. Compare the old Literature Review with Findings/Discussion, find passages making the same point, and bring literature and participant evidence together. Move existing writing first; add transitions or synthesis only where needed. Check that the section does more than describe studies and that my interpretation is visible.
Send the first restructured section to Ben on Teams before applying the same approach across the whole report. He offered to review it. Then revise the remaining sections, check definitions and method terminology, remove repetition, and typeset the final document.
Decision: Keep the project, primary dataset, core themes, personal motivation and most existing evidence. Change the structure and synthesis so the research builds towards a defensible design argument.