When describing the processes and results that involved participants' comments and actions, do you refer to them with their first name or surname? After using their full name once, I go on using their first name in the rest of the document.. i.e: James Brown created blah blah... James focused on materials that are...

Someone suggested that it would sound better to use surnames just to be consistent with citing references. Do you agree? Should I refer to all of the participants with their surnames instead? I was using first names as I got to know them through the process and surnames sounded a little cold, but then a thesis is an official document, so maybe surnames would be better eh?

I have anonymised all my participants' names but use their first name pseudonyms only. I think if you are arguing that they have been co-participants, it's their voice etc etc that using their surnames weaken this argument. Also first names distinguishes them from the academic commentators you have used; to use all surnames - academic and particpant - I think would confuse.

Thank you for that Ady. They are the writers/artists/critics created work for my projects that form the basis of my thesis. Not as co-authors though, only as participants. Also different than the participants/subjects that took part in my user studies who are kept anonymous already. I think I will continue using their first names in that case. I too agree that surnames would be confusing, as they are not being cited as such but they are part of the study instead. Thanks again.