Ben pointed to the methods section as somewhere I could make the report shorter. I had been trying to show the work that went into finding sources and collecting accounts. On a reread I could see that some of those details, such as naming Google Scholar in the narrative, told the reader little about the strength of the evidence. I looked at what someone would need to know to understand how I reached the findings and judge the limits of them.
I kept the explanation of why I used written questions. People could answer at their own pace, while I had less opportunity to follow up if an answer was ambiguous. The report also needed to say how the ten adults were recruited, how I worked through the accounts using reflexive thematic analysis and how I checked themes against the original wording. Those choices shape whose experiences are visible and what I can reasonably claim.
I kept one coding example because it does more than a general description. P01’s answer about support enabling independence and P10’s emphasis on doing things alone gave me different ways to read the same theme. Looking back at the full answers helped me preserve that difference when writing about chosen assistance.
<aside>
I kept a detail when it helped the reader understand how I reached an interpretation or what could limit it.
</aside>
I tried to bring repeated limitations together. The group was small and self-selected, and the written accounts varied in detail. Some accounts included accompanied travel. I needed to be careful about which answers referred to airports and what an answer could tell me about travelling independently. When a prompt invited people to imagine support without practical constraints, I could use the response as an idea to consider while being explicit about how the question was framed.
My check was whether a reader could still tell who took part, how I went from responses to themes and which conclusions are provisional. The appendix gives the reader the questionnaire wording, while the methods explain how I used it. Tightening the section also gave the discussion more room to explain why the evidence matters instead of repeating the same qualification in several places.
The revised Research approach and methods sets the evidence out in the order the reader needs it. It explains the approach, who took part, consent and storage, how I coded the answers, and what the literature and questionnaire can support. Table 1 shows how those decisions affect the output. The note beneath it records where a question concerns independence or travel generally, which is a more precise way to qualify the evidence than repeating a broad warning after each quotation.