Alias: Constructive Feedback
... the reviewers gave
PositiveFeedbackFirst,
but still need to tell the author what can
be improved on the next round of editing.
The author is still sequestered as a
FlyOnTheWall.
* * *
The main output of the writer's workshop is
an improved piece of literature. Some improvements
correct sins of omission; most authors appreciate
these, as they don't attack anything produced by
the author (only the lack of something produced).
Other improvements require that the author remove
or change manuscript text. Human nature sometimes
equates imperfection in a creation with the
imperfection of its creator.
We can divide these criticisms into two kinds:
criticism of content, and criticism of the
presentation. Because AuthorsAreExperts, the
focus of WritersWorkshops is on presentation,
though content criticism is fair game.
Engineers take technical criticism harder than any other.
DesignReviews
are better than
WritersWorkshops to support the detailed,
reductionist analyses necessary to validate
technical issues.
WritersWorkshops focus more on
presentation and aesthetics. But an attack on presentation,
language, and aesthetics can be equally devastating,
as authors may construe the criticism as applying
to their personality, intelligence, or to their
upbringing in a culture different from the one in
which they work.
Unsupported criticism is difficult to take,
particularly if the author cannot respond,
as provided by FlyOnTheWall and
AuthorAsksForClarification.
Unconstructive criticism not only has the possibility
of making the author uncomfortable, but provides no
outlet for learning.
Therefore:
Provide constructive feedback to the author; that is,
offer no criticism unless it is accompanied by
a well-considered, implementable suggestion for
improvement.
ErichGamma suggests:
Provide constructive feedback by first stating the
problem, followed by a suggestion.
Though responsibility lies with each reviewer,
the moderator can help guide, remind, and support
people in giving
ConstructiveFeedback.
Good moderators do this in an unobtrusive way.
* * *
No review is without risk, and authors take some
risk of having their worldview upset by a review;
that's how learning takes place.
The main result of
SuggestionsForImprovement
is that the author feels that colleagues are
trying to help, that they care that the author's
dignity be preserved, that they offer their own
insights to increase the knowledge of the author.
The second result is that the author actually
does
increase in knowledge from constructive criticism.
RalphJohnson adds: " Forcing all criticism
to include a way to improve is limiting,
because it might be that the criticism that one
reviewer makes could be answered by another.
But then that second reviewer
would probably have come
up with it anyway,
so you aren't losing much by
limiting criticism,
and you are gaining a lot."
This pattern is a high point in the workshop,
the high point of tension for the author. At the
end of this section, the
AuthorAsksForClarification
on any issues that remain from the
SuggestionsForImprovement
(and from other sections as well, but most will be
from here).
Remaining angst about this section is brought to closure
in
ThankTheAuthor and
ClearingThePalate.
NEXT: AuthorAsksForClarification
--
JimCoplien 1996/8/26
Forward reference here to
RaiseThePapersPotential, which sharpens the intent of
SuggestionsForImprovement by having the participants cast about for ways to take advantage of the author's existing good points.
--- AlistairCockburn
[
WritersWorkshopPatterns |
PositiveFeedbackFirst |
AuthorAsksForClarification ]