When I used a line from a questionnaire response, I wanted a reader to be able to work back to the question that prompted it. Ben said the appendix was a suitable place for the questionnaire and supporting material. I used participant codes and question numbers so the link could be followed without making someone’s name part of the argument. Appendix A gives the prompts. The responses are organised separately under participant identifiers.
The question can change what an answer means. For example, P01, Q3 describes a change to the boarding area. A reader can follow that reference to see the setting and how the comment sits within the answer. Q1 asks about independence more generally. I can use an answer from that prompt to think about how someone defines independence, while being careful about what it tells me about an airport. A prompt that invited people to imagine support without cost or technology limits needs its own context too. It gives me ideas to consider, with feasibility still open.
I used the themes table to make the steps clearer. The account gives the reader something a participant described. The theme records how I interpreted it alongside other accounts. The design proposition shows what I thought could be explored next. In the case of a boarding-area change, the proposition is clearer information about what changed and what to do next. Showing those steps lets a reader see where I have made a design judgement.
<aside>
Keeping the prompt and participant code with an example makes it easier to check both the wording and the interpretation I built from it.
</aside>
The appendix serves a reader assessing the report. For the journal I can explain the checking process using a code and prompt number. That gives an examiner a route through the evidence in the submitted material. I also needed to consider the original consent for quotations, how anonymity was recorded and what could identify someone when several details are put together. The part I want to make visible here is the decision about how to handle the evidence and the care needed when it moves between audiences.
I would start in the discussion and choose a reference such as P01, Q3. I would find the prompt in Appendix A, locate the response under P01 in Appendix B and check the wording against the account. Then I would go back to the paragraph and ask whether the claim still holds when I read the response in full. The same check works in the other direction. If a theme appears in Table 1, I can see which accounts illustrate it and which proposition I drew from it.