Read Understanding Research Online
Authors: Marianne Franklin
Understanding Research (40 page)
‘Feedback’ is integral to academic life, from the point of view of
learning
(students are assessed in order to progress),
teaching
(marking and commenting on students’ work), and
peer assessment
(students/researchers evaluating each others’ work). There is a range of types of feedback that vary in terms of who is giving feedback (peers or teachers); how the feedback is given (written or orally) and whether or not we know who is giving the feedback (blind or double-blind). Even those far along in our research careers rely on feedback to improve our work. Students are not the only ones concerned about receiving feedback that in theory provides productive guidance on how we can improve our work; fully fledged academic researchers also receive feedback in the form of reviews of work submitted for publication, discussant’s comments on conference presentations and sometimes from research monitoring by our institutions.
7
As universities require their teaching staff to undergo teacher-training as a co-requisite to tenure, or are providing training for incumbent teaching staff, the notion that feedback is
necessarily
more than a ranking exercise or numbers game, more than scribbling a few curt comments in the margin or cover page of student essays – such as ‘excellent work’, ‘well done’, or ‘poorly executed’, ‘inadequate’ – or the awarding of a final ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ is slowly gaining a foothold. Critics and supporters of quantitative assessment and their corollaries, such as league tables, abound, as do those of purely qualitative forms of feedback; all that comes under ‘non-graded assessment’ in short. This is why we need to distinguish between feedback in the round and scores assigned to any piece of work; only one part of the feedback. There is a whole other realm of feedback that operates as the underwater part of the visible iceberg that represents quantitative indicators of quality and achievement. This underwater part is in practice the larger part of the research learning curve. It comes to us as both informal and formal written or spoken commentary on our research, either when presenting it as work-in-progress, output, or public defence.
Informal feedback
comes to us on a daily basis: in class during question- and -answer sessions, and individual and group tutorials as we encounter on-the-spot reactions not only to our own questioning but also as our responses to others when in debate. Individual and group-based supervisory encounters during the course of a dissertation project also influence how students perceive their own progress; email encounters are becoming increasingly predominant as students and mentors communicate by remote means. The main point here is that as students, and then as educators or budding researchers, we learn from experience and example more than by our grades.
Below are some do’s and don’ts for receiving and by implication giving feedback in the form of spoken or written comments on someone else’s completed work or ongoing research project. These apply mainly to public settings and examinations but also the work for one-on-one supervisory sessions. Feedback from supervisors most likely will occur when no others are present so you need not feel so constrained by these do’s and don’ts aimed at formal public settings. However, for the feedback to be effective many supervisors would argue that the same principles apply.
The do’s and don’ts below are a compilation of my own experience, as educator and research supervisor but also as a student. These points also combine valuable input from colleagues and former students (who shared their concerns and perceptions with me after graduating, and some even beforehand). It is also no surprise to note that some of the don’ts have been generated by how supervisors perceive students during a dissertation project; marked by the upward curve of student numbers and use of computer-mediated communication by students (and staff ) to interact with their supervisors and teachers; smart phones with mobile web access have been generating additional email traffic; short, text-like communications between students and staff increasingly ending with phrases such as ‘. . . sent from my beloved [brand] . . .’
D
o be prepared for criticism. Expect it. In fact you should be concerned if you don’t get any at all.
Why? Criticism is part of doing research. Debate and argumentation are part of the territory; learning to defend your project is an art and a skill. Remember, getting away with no overt criticism at all does not mean your work is without fault. Research designs all improve with feedback from opponents and ‘critical friends’ so go get it!
Don’t
, however, take the criticism as an attack.
Why? Good feedback is given as a way to improve your research and to help you meet you goals. Of course, some supervisors, discussants and reviewers are better at giving feedback than others. If you feel that your work is being attacked rather than critiqued then be prepared to still act graciously and take whatever is useful from the feedback.
Do
listen, preferably without interrupting.
Why? It is natural to want to defend your choices, correct any apparent misunderstandings of what you’re doing straightaway, but you can do this afterwards. Apart from courteousness, waiting also gives you time to consider your response, if not come up with one!
Do
be aware that positive comments or compliments can also contain crucial criticism.
Why? Some cultures don’t express negative criticism directly. Here you need to understand when different cultural and institutional conventions are at work. For example, ‘But I can’t help wondering . . .’ often precedes a fundamental objection to what you’re doing, how, or why you’re doing it; likewise with the expression ‘with respect’. In some settings praise precedes criticism and in others it comes afterwards; ‘this could be better’ is another way of saying ‘this is poorly executed work’ and saying something is ‘bad’ is in some parts of the world straight-talking. Receiving personal feedback on your work in public is quite commonplace in some settings whereas in others this happens under ‘four eyes’ so you may need to take account of this shift in register. For instance, the same person’s feedback can have a different tenor in a private (supervisory or friendship) and public setting.
Do
accept that some people’s comments and some sorts of criticism are harder to deal with than others. Some of our toughest critics can come from our support network.
Why? We are all human. Personality clashes, cultural differences, personal or institutional rivalries, grandstanding, and ‘unknowables’ like fatigue or stress all have a role to play in feedback scenarios, public ones particularly. So do group dynamics and gender/power hierarchies. In some settings official rank and superiority affect who can critique who, where, and in what form. In others, ‘friendly fire’ is not considered a fauxpas in that some ‘edgier’ feedback is part of interactions ‘offstage’. Besides, those who work in the same or an overlapping area will spot weaknesses and oversights in our work more quickly; it is in their interest – and yours – to do so in fact.
Do
try and notice your own responses to negative feedback; do you feel depressed, anxious, misjudged, indignant?
Why? Because negative feedback is not fun; few people relish criticism. Some are happy to hear anything about ongoing work whilst others are more guarded until they have something ‘presentable’ to hand in. In both cases, the intensity of our emotional response may be in inverse proportion to the critique or intentions behind it. Sometimes we respond most strongly to the fairest criticism. So, if it feels tough, is the criticism fair? Can you do something about it, and so improve your work? If you are the recipient of a personal attack
or an angry response to your work then stay calm if you can (for example don’t forget to exhale). Encounters of the more ferocious kind are also part of the territory; a direct attack can be less lethal than one taking a ‘softly, softly’ approach, so you need to take both in your stride.
Don’t
sit back and think that you have things sorted on getting positive feedback, compliments and suchlike, especially when this applies to work-in-progress. Take heart for sure but do try not to gloat too much if others around you are having a hard time.
Why? Well you can work this one out for yourself! Recall that the quality of a dissertation is not decided upon by who gets to the finish line first or accumulates the most thumbs-up on the way.
Do
try not to fret if a supervisory session or seminar presentation is disappointing.
Why? Maybe it wasn’t as bad as you think. In any case, consider all criticism in order to take on board what you need to and under advisement and then MOVE ON. Fretting is a form of procrastination too.
Don’t
panic if you get a question you are unable to answer (yet); if your oversight, or attempts to ‘bluff’ yourself out this corner get called, graciously ‘fess up’ and move on.
Why? Sometimes you are not at that point; for example, you may not yet have clear findings or it is too soon to provide a definitive set of conclusions. Sometimes, though, the question reveals an aspect of your work that is under-prepared or weak; for example, ‘what exactly is your research question?’ is not something to which you have no answer at all in an oral examination. If a lack of preparation or a fundamental weakness is exposed, then better it happens sooner rather than later.
Don’t
try and defend yourself
every
time you get a criticism, reject every suggestion immediately, or try and gain your audience’s sympathies by emotional appeals.
Why? In all these cases, things can backfire. In a supervisory setting or research seminar, if you find yourself receiving a lot of criticism – justified or not to your mind, countering every comment or criticism usually means you’re not listening. Whatever you do, try and avoid specious responses such as ‘but it’s difficult’, or ‘I haven’t had time’, or ‘but my supervisor
said . . .’ . In the last case, emotional appeals or attempts to gain sympathy are not an argument. In exceptional circumstances, deal with these issues with your mentor or personal tutor.
Don’t
despair if you are ever subjected to a particularly personal attack, or a critique that takes exception to your work on political, social, or cultural grounds.
Why? See above. In the first instance, personal attacks (
ad hominem
arguments) are the weakest form of argumentation, as pointed out by the Greek philosopher Aristotle many centuries ago. Good debate and constructive critique interacts with the content, not the person. In football terms, the aim is to play the ball, not the player. In the second case, you are in more complex territory; if the criticisms mounted expose a fundamental weakness in your research, your underlying assumptions, or reveal an ethical or cultural blind-spot on your part, listen first. And if you find yourself without ‘a leg to stand on’, take note and learn from it.
Do
expect there to be more suggestions and ideas than you can use.
Why? Our colleagues, classmates, and supervisors all have their own ideas. Their comments are also work-in-progress and are generated by what we are doing. Some points may have to be put aside for another time. Others may be more urgent for our current project. The art is to know the difference, for we cannot use all feedback equally at the time. Attempting to respond to everything is not a way to gain focus. Decisions have to be made and priorities set. In some ways, reviewers, discussant or supervisor may confuse giving you constructive feedback on your own work with telling you to do the research they wish you had done. In other words, you may hear that you need to do a different paper or project. If you think you are hearing this it is important to talk with your main supervisor or a second supervisor.
Do
give yourself time to think about all comments, ideas, and criticisms before making any major changes.
Why? We all need time to absorb the feedback we are getting, get past any emotional responses to comments, or come to terms with that sinking feeling that our ‘original contribution to knowledge’ is more modest than we imagined for example, or that our topic is not ‘cool’ compared to others. So be it. Perspective comes with distance and increases with the benefit of hindsight. Live feedback sessions are nerve-wracking at times. However, written feedback, particularly when it is negative, can sometimes feel more devastating. When required to give a written response, it is even more important to take your time; don’t send back your first response, you will regret it!
Do
take detailed notes if the feedback is oral rather than written.
We risk losing some important points of the feedback if we do not take careful notes during the sessions. This applies to all live sessions – group presentations, conference presentations and the like.
Don’t
send endless emails, streams of your digital consciousness and thinking, to supervisors.
Why? They clutter up in-boxes and generate stress because you are not the only one under your supervisor’s care. This is endemic to email/SMS-based communications; sometimes these sorts of panic-button mails have their place. But on the whole they do the student more good (by writing/venting) than the supervisory relationship. Continue to write these mails (part of your research diary) but don’t send them until the next day. Reread before sending and then ask yourself: do I really need to send this?
Do
thank people for their feedback, including your supervisor.
Why? Graciousness and acknowledgement go a long way. For public settings, if a point is well made, then acknowledge this. If a criticism is fair, even fundamental, then take it on the chin. If you are not sure what people mean then ask for clarification. As for your supervisor, well they (we) are also human! Taking notes also allows for time to absorb any broadsides, and prevent an over-hasty retort.