I went into the meeting with Ben with one main topic to discuss: the Studio Practice outcome.
I explained that I currently see two possible routes for the final outcome. One route is VR or another form of technology. This could potentially be used to practise airport scenarios before travel, or to support self-regulation while in the airport, for example by reducing or blocking sound and visual stimulation. The exact technology does not necessarily have to be VR if another format is better supported by the research.
The second route is the idea I have previously discussed: a portable airport-rehearsal experience for autistic adults, where different parts of the airport journey could be practised within a local community setting.
I explained where I am currently at with the research and how I thought these directions might develop. Ben’s main advice was that now I have completed my primary research, I need to begin bringing everything together into one clear research narrative. Rather than treating the primary and secondary research as separate pieces, I need to connect strong qualitative quotes from participants with strong academic and secondary research. The final design outcome should then emerge naturally from that combined evidence.
Ben explained that academic books and peer-reviewed papers are particularly important because the research has already gone through a rigorous review process. Therefore, my final design direction should ideally be grounded strongly in the secondary research, with my primary research helping to support, reinforce or add lived-experience detail to what the academic research is already showing.
He said I am probably at the stage where the project naturally feels a bit muddy because I now have a lot of material. My task is to begin filtering it. I need to identify one or two strong ideas or problems, bring the relevant evidence around them together, and tell a clear story about something I want to respond to as a designer.
Ben gave an example of how the Critical Report might begin to narrow. I could potentially identify a specific barrier at the airport, perhaps around the embarkation side of the journey, explain what currently exists, identify where the gap is, and then propose how design might intervene. Alternatively, I could focus on another specific part of the travel experience, such as what happens once someone is on the plane. The important thing at this stage is to orientate the research around questions such as: What am I actually doing? What is important? What is the specific problem I am trying to solve?
Ben said he thinks the project is strong and there are many different “pinch points” where design could intervene. However, because there are so many possible points of intervention, he is not completely convinced that a workshop is automatically the strongest final format. A workshop could be an indirect way of solving the problem, whereas there may be more direct design interventions available.
We discussed possible forms the outcome could take, including technology, VR, paper-based design, installation, or other service/design interventions. While Ben was talking about installation-based outcomes, I had another possible idea: creating something closer to the airport sensory or rehearsal spaces used in places such as Singapore, but potentially integrating VR or another simulation element into the space.
The main point is that I need to identify one problem where I can confidently say: this is a problem I can respond to through design.
Ben also said that choosing something like an app or technology is not a problem in itself. There is usually someone in every cohort who designs an app. The important question is why that format is appropriate. If the research clearly points towards a technological solution, then using technology is completely justified. The outcome should follow the evidence rather than choosing a format first and trying to make the research fit it.
Another useful way Ben described the Critical Report was to imagine the assessor constantly asking “yeah, but why?” The report should anticipate those questions and answer them. That sequence of evidence and justification becomes the narrative of the project.
Ben suggested two things I should now do. First, look at how an insight from one academic paper might connect with an insight from another paper, and then see how those connect with something said in my primary research. This is essentially about triangulating the evidence. Second, begin “knitting together” the papers and findings that genuinely relate to the problem I am interested in, while putting aside research that is interesting but no longer relevant. The process now is one of filtering.
Ben reminded me of a previous student project as an example. The student was biracial, half English and half Pakistani, and researched language and mixed-race identity. She combined secondary research, including census data showing an increase in people identifying as mixed race in the UK, with powerful qualitative quotes from interviews. For example, participants described not always being accepted by either racial group and experiencing racism or bullying from different communities. The qualitative quotes gave emotional and lived-experience weight to the broader secondary evidence. Ben said I should be looking for similarly strong quotes in my own research that can sit alongside and strengthen the academic findings.
After meeting with Ben, I spoke with Sarah about his feedback and the direction of the project.
We discussed the possibility of doing further secondary research into the relationship between autism and technology. I explained that I know there are studies around this area, partly because of previous things I have encountered through my sister, and Sarah agreed that this could be useful to investigate if technology continues to emerge as a possible design direction.
We also discussed the themes beginning to emerge from my primary research. The strongest areas currently appear to be:
independence, unpredictability, self-regulation, and coordination.