Seeking and Using Feedback
Feedback is not one thing. Asking for it without saying which thing you want is how a reader ends up fixing commas in a chapter whose method is wrong - and the material's answer is to name the level before you hand anything over.
Name the level before you hand anything over
The instruction is one line: decide at what level you are seeking feedback. What follows is six examples of what a level is, and they are not variations on a theme - they sit at genuinely different depths, from a design decision that would take months to unwind to a presentational choice that takes an afternoon.
THE SIX LEVELS, AND WHAT AN ANSWER AT EACH ONE CAN CHANGE
| Level, as named in the source | What you are asking to be judged | What an answer can still change | Cost of hearing it late |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness of the methodology | Whether the approach can answer your question at all | The design - and everything downstream of it | Highest. After data collection, very little can be done |
| General structure of your paper | Whether the argument is in a workable order | Chapter boundaries and what belongs where | High. Restructuring late means rewriting joins throughout |
| Quality of the evidence you are using | Whether your sources and data will bear the claims | What you cite, what you collect, what you claim | High if it sends you back to the field or the literature |
| General flow of ideas | Whether a reader can follow the argument through | Sequence, transitions, signposting | Moderate. Mostly repairable within existing sections |
| Appropriateness of your writing style | Whether the register and voice suit the genre | Sentences, not substance | Low, and cheapest of all to fix last |
| Best arrangement of your data | Whether tables, figures and extracts are placed and presented well | Presentation of material you already hold | Low, and largely independent of the rest |
The second, third and fourth columns are this library's analysis. The source supplies the six names and nothing else about them.
Each level has a page in this library. Methodology fit is treated at Methodological Coherence, report structure at Structuring a Research Report, evidence quality at Assessing the Academic Value of Sources, and the arrangement of data at Presenting Tables, Figures and Appendices.
The six are not interchangeable
The practical consequence is asymmetric. Feedback at a low level given early is merely premature - you tidy a style that later gets rewritten. Feedback at a high level given late is unusable, because the decision it concerns has already been paid for in fieldwork. A methodology judgement delivered after data collection cannot be acted on; it can only be declared as a limitation.
Which level to ask at, by where you are
Corrective feedback early is normal
The comparison is the source's own and it is doing something precise. Nobody reads a toddler's falling over as evidence of unfitness for walking. The correction is not a verdict on the learner; it is the mechanism by which the skill is acquired, and its volume early on is a property of the stage rather than of the person.
This matters more than it looks for the reader this library is written for. A mid-career project manager is usually competent, often senior, and unaccustomed to being corrected extensively in their own working life. Receiving heavy correction on a first research draft reads, to that person, as a signal it is not - and the predictable response is to stop showing work until it is good, which is the exact behaviour that produces the crisis examined at Overcoming Writer's Block.
Other readers exist
The material makes a point that is easy to miss and worth acting on: it may be possible to improve many aspects of your work by consulting sources other than your supervisor. It then names one - a learning adviser - and describes what that reader can do: tell you whether you are on the right track, and "show you in a non-judgmental way where and how things might be improved".
Two things in that description are load-bearing. On the right track is a low-cost, high-value judgement that does not require subject expertise. And the source's own word for the manner of it - "non-judgmental" - is an explicit acknowledgement that a reader's relationship to your work changes what you can afford to show them. A first reader who does not assess you can be shown a mess.
What a non-assessing reader can give you
- Whether the thing is broadly on track, before more work is committed
- Where the argument becomes hard to follow
- Where and how something might be improved, without a grade attached
- A first pass on structure and flow, cheaply and often
- Permission, in effect, to show unfinished work to someone
What only your supervisor can give you
- A judgement on whether the methodology fits the research question
- Direction on what the work must contain to meet the standard
- Knowledge of the field the work has to sit inside
- The distinction between a requirement and a preference
- The judgement that the work is ready
Asking is not an imposition
This is an incentive argument rather than an encouragement, and it is stronger for it. The institution carries the completion risk, so supervision is not a favour granted to you but a control the institution operates in its own interest. A project manager will recognise the structure: this is the argument for escalating early, made from the sponsor's side of the table.
When your supervisor is away
One clause covers continuity, and it puts the obligation on you: make arrangements for your continued adequate supervision while they are away. It is the only continuity instruction anywhere in the supervision material.
Read as a continuity problem, this is familiar ground. You would not run a delivery through a six-week absence of the only person who can approve anything without agreeing a delegate and a response time in advance, in writing, before the absence starts. The same three questions apply here: who decides in their place, how fast a response can be expected, and what you are authorised to proceed with in the meantime.
Using what comes back
The material tells you to get feedback and to seek it at a chosen level. It says considerably less about what to do once it arrives - and the one distinction that matters most is made elsewhere in the same deck, in the breakdown scenario, where a suggestion received as an instruction costs months.
On receiving feedback
- Write it down during the conversation, not afterwards from memory
- Mark each item as a direction or a suggestion, and ask outright where it is unclear
- Note which level each comment addresses - style comments on an early draft may be answering a question you did not ask
- Decide and record what you will act on, what you will defer, and what you will not do
- Where you disagree, say so and say why, rather than quietly not acting
- Bring the response back to the next meeting, so advice given is visibly advice used
That second item is the whole subject of When Supervision Breaks Down, where the failure begins with a suggestion that neither party ever labels. The material's own closing checklist reinforces the last two items, telling you both to take your supervisor's advice seriously and not to let the meetings lapse - paraphrased at The Do's and Don'ts of Social Research.
What to carry forward
- Six levels are named - methodology, structure, evidence quality, flow of ideas, writing style, arrangement of data - as an example set, not a closed list.
- The source gives no order or timing for them. Ask at high levels while the decisions are still open, and at low levels only when the draft is near final.
- Feedback at a low level early is merely wasted. Feedback at a high level late cannot be acted on at all.
- Needing substantial correction early is normal for a beginner researcher; the source's own comparison is learning to walk.
- Treat it as design review rather than appraisal - the count of comments measures how early the draft is, not how poor it is.
- Your supervisor is not your only reader. A non-assessing first reader can be shown work that is not ready.
- Asking is aligned with the institution's own interest in your completion, which is why reluctance is the wrong instinct.
- Arrange continuity before an absence, not during one - and record which comments were directions and which were suggestions.
Frequently asked questions
What are the six levels of feedback?
The appropriateness of the methodology, the general structure of your paper, the quality of the evidence you are using, the general flow of ideas, the appropriateness of your writing style, and the best arrangement of your data. The source presents them as examples of what a level is, so treat the list as illustrative rather than exhaustive.
Which level should I ask about first?
The material does not say, and any ordering you see attached to it - including this page's - is added analysis. The reasoning offered here is cost: methodology feedback is only actionable before data collection, while style and data arrangement can be fixed at the end. Ask high while decisions are open.
Is it a bad sign if I get a lot of corrective feedback?
The material says the opposite: needing quite a bit of guidance and corrective feedback in the early stages is normal for a beginner researcher, and it compares corrective feedback to learning how to walk. The volume tells you how early the draft is. What is a bad sign is going quiet and not submitting drafts at all.
Who else can read my work?
The material suggests consulting sources other than your supervisor and names one - a learning adviser who can tell you whether you are on the right track and show you where things might be improved, without judgement attached. It names no others, so anyone beyond that is your own decision and carries your own risk assessment.
My supervisor is away for two months. What am I entitled to?
The material states that you should make arrangements for your continued adequate supervision while they are away, and specifies nothing further - no alternate, no timeframe, no escalation route. Raise it before the absence, ask who covers, and get the answer in writing along with an expected response time.
What do I do with feedback I disagree with?
Say so, and say why - quietly not acting is the failure mode the material's own breakdown scenario is built around. Establish first whether the item was a direction or a suggestion, then acknowledge what is right about it before explaining why it does not fit your case.
References and source attribution
- The supplied teaching source: weekly study notes, slide decks and assessment activities for a master's-level research methods subject in project management. Author, institution and year are not stated in the supplied files.
- The Week 13 slide deck on the challenge of writing up, slides 26 and 27, which carry the six feedback levels, the reluctance and absence guidance, and the corrective-feedback passage quoted above.
- The same deck's slides 28 and 29, whose supervision breakdown scenario supplies the direction-versus-suggestion distinction referred to in the final section.
- The closing checklist of the same subject, reproduced by its final week from a methods text's student-researcher toolkit with a copyright line dated 2012, whose supervision items are paraphrased rather than reproduced above.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Which of the six feedback levels should I be asking about at my current stage?
- Draft a covering note that states the level of feedback I want on this chapter.
- My supervisor is away for six weeks - draft the continuity arrangement I should propose.
- Sort these supervisor comments into directions, suggestions, and things I should push back on.
- What can a non-assessing first reader usefully tell me about a rough draft?
- Help me answer feedback I disagree with without dismissing it.