When giving feedback, sticking to the facts, communicating impact, and recommending improvements are the three points to consider.
The development of a scientist is directly related to their continuous improvement. To support this progress, we need to go beyond our own judgments and receive feedback from our peers and mentors. The great challenge of external evaluation is that it is often performed as a simple negative review or just a “great job!”. When it happens as a simple negative review, the feedback evokes negative and self-defense feelings that prevent implementation. Likewise, as ineffective as a simple negative review, a “great job!” does not make it possible to find the points at which we could improve and become scientists more prepared for future challenges.
Before any feedback, assess whether the moment is suitable for an open and non-judgmental dialogue. We also need to identify the particular context within ourselves as to why we give our feedback and the openness of who will receive it. For these points, it is crucial to create trust, respect, and sincere relationships because, without these factors, no feedback can be effective.
To provide feedback that truly drives continuous improvement, we need to focus on the situation (facts), the impact, and a recommendation for moving forward.
What was the situation?
What situation prompted this feedback? At this point, it is important to stick only to the facts, describing them without inferring the receiver’s intention. Regardless of the positive or negative nature of the feedback, this is the time to structure and make clear the points that are the focus of the conversation.
Case 1: John, the fact that I would like to treat happened yesterday during a routine experiment. At that moment, while we were carrying out the experiment, you were talking to Julia.
Case 2: Julia, today, during our weekly lab meeting, you brought information about new research involving techniques that we use in our experiments.
What was the impact?
After situating the facts, the next step is to indicate the impact of that attitude or action on you, the team, or the institution. Again, do not assume the receiver’s intentions and bring possible evidence of the impact, when this can be measurable, or your feeling when experiencing the situation.
Case 1: Our experiments are very sensitive, and by breaking the silence of the room, I was not able to concentrate on my own experiment, confusing the solutions that would be used in each step and consequently impacting all my results.
Case 2: The new studies you reported induced many ideas for our research, and now the entire team is motivated to implement improvements.
How to move forward?
As a step following the facts and impacts reported, it is essential to indicate what could be done to mitigate the negative impact or sustain the positive impact. At this point, depending on the context, it is also possible to ask the person receiving the feedback what could be done.
Case 1: It would be vital to me that we keep silent during the experiments. But I understand that our conversations can be beneficial, so I propose that we can leave the room when we want to talk more freely. This will keep our collaboration going while not negatively impacting my experiments.
Case 2: Considering the positive impact of your contribution, I would like to thank you on behalf of the entire team for your excellent contribution and commitment to keeping us up to date with the latest in our area of research.
Those who receive structured feedback are more likely to reflect on the situation in a neutral way and seek to implement the improvements that have been indicated. Likewise, sincere and respectful feedback can strengthen ties and expand collaboration capabilities in the research environment. Whether between the PI and his advisees or among peers, giving and receiving feedback is crucial to enhancing our technical skills and continuous improvement that will lay the foundations of our scientific careers inside and outside academia.
Jadson Jall, PhD 