''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 WritersWorkshop''''''s is on presentation,'''
'''though content criticism is fair game.'''

Engineers take technical criticism harder than any other.
DesignReviews
are better than WritersWorkshop''''''s to support the detailed,
reductionist analyses necessary to validate
technical issues.  WritersWorkshop''''''s 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 ]