Alongside the research question, I also started thinking about a working title for the Critical Report.

At this stage, I wanted the title to make the audience and subject clear without sounding as though the project had already reached a final design solution.

Keeping the Title Descriptive

Because the project was still broad, the title needed to remain fairly descriptive.

I was working across autism, independent travel and accessibility, so I did not want to introduce a specific technology before the research had justified it.

This also helped me separate the role of the title from the research question. The title could describe the area of enquiry, while the question could remain the more precise thing I was trying to investigate.

A Working Rather Than Final Decision

I treated the title in the same way as the question: as something that could change.

As the project later narrowed to airports and then towards bioresponsive support, the title needed to become much more specific.

The early title was useful because it gave the report an identity while still leaving room for the research to change the direction.

Developing the Working Question

Once I had a basic report outline, I needed a working question that could give the research some direction without pretending that the project had already been fully resolved.

At this point, the project was still much broader than it is now. I was looking at independent international travel, autism, accessibility, autonomy and the wider value of travel rather than one specific airport intervention.

Keeping the Question Open

I deliberately treated the research question as temporary.

The module guidance makes it clear that the question can evolve, and that was important for me because I did not want the wording to force the project into a solution too early.

The question needed to be specific enough to guide the research, but open enough to change as the evidence developed.

Early Direction

The strongest early direction focused on how design might reduce barriers preventing adults on the autism spectrum from accessing independent international travel.

This was useful because it gave me a clear audience and a clear issue, but it was still very broad.

It did not yet explain which part of the travel experience I would focus on or what type of barrier would become most important.

The working question gave me a starting point, not a promise that the final report would stay in the same place.

What I Needed to Do Next

From here, I needed to keep testing the question against the research.

If one area repeatedly became more important than the others, the wording would need to narrow with it. That is eventually what happened as the project moved towards airports, sensory regulation and responsive support.