... the reviewers are SittingInaCircle,
the author is a FlyOnTheWall, and the pattern
has been summarized (VolunteerSummarizesTheWork).
The reviewers are ready to provide feedback to the
author.  How do they provide feedback so it has
the best chance of being successful?

'''*  *  *'''

'''When we review literature, there are bits that'''
'''we enjoy, and bits we'd like to improve.'''

'''Yet most review settings dwell on the improvements,'''
'''since the parts that we like need no work, and'''
'''therefore need no mention.'''

Most engineers are trained to find and solve problems
Most engineering evaluations focus on problems, on
areas for improvement, consistent with their training
and practice.
But, more broadly than this, we seem to be better at
finding "misfits" than we are at noticing the lack of
patterns or constructs that support quality.
Quality is more than the lack of misfits,
but Western, reductionist criticism focuses on the
negatives, leaving the positives unmentioned.

'''The problem with this approach is that it leaves doubt'''
'''in the mind of the author about the value of the'''
'''paragraphs, or the styles, or the organization, that'''
'''were left unmentioned.  Did the reviewers leave them'''
'''out because they ran out of time?  Because they were'''
'''less offensive than the problems they mentioned?'''

'''This approach leaves authors feeling insecure,'''
'''with the positive side of their contribution left'''
'''unrecognized.'''

The author may also become confused and remove a well-done
bit of text to address feedback that should be dealt
with elsewhere.

'''Therefore:'''

'''Start the review process by accentuating the'''
'''positives:  what works, what is good, what the author'''
'''should leave unchanged in the next iteration'''
'''of the work.'''

This makes it explicit what is good and should be left
alone during editing. This engages the author in the
process from the beginning.

'''*  *  *'''

By making a conscious effort to surface the positives,
it underscores the author's contribution and
makes the review a SafeSetting.
By doing positives first, their importance is underscored,
and the author starts off encouraged rather than
discouraged.
That means the author is more likely to hear the
rest of the feedback -- much more so than if the feedback
had been given in the other order.

'''NEXT:''' SuggestionsForImprovement

-- JimCoplien 1996/6/28
----
[ SuggestionsForImprovement | WritersWorkshopPatterns ]