Feedback that lands: what keeps the conversation afloat

By Maleeha Rizwan, Researcher Development Specialist (Research Staff)

Giving feedback, in conversation, is one of the most consistent responsibilities of a research leader and one of the most difficult to get right. This might be a regular 1:1 call, a development conversation or a dedicated time to talk about feedback on a draft. You might recognise this as a familiar experience: a carefully prepared conversation, delivered with clarity and good intentions, which experiences a ‘drift’ and does not land as expected. Maybe the recipient became defensive, withdrew or appeared to agree, with little changing in practice. The outcome may have undermined confidence, yours or theirs. Does this resonate?

These drifts are not always the result of poor communication and often point to something more complex. Research leaders are often tasked with giving thoughtful feedback against a setting of competing demands and heavy workloads. Making the time and emotional space for careful and considered conversations is not always easy. However, having strategies and tools that you can use in your feedback conversation can help with preparedness, confidence and the ability to work with these drifts, rather than always reacting to them.

Here’s what I would like to offer: feedback is not only a matter of clarity or communication, the efficacy of feedback is also shaped by how it is received, interpreted and experienced. This is important to consider in the context of different relationships and research, where conversations are encouraged but need further guidance.

Feedback as a process, not an event

Feedback is often framed as information given by an expert and received by a learner, with the expectation of improvement. Carless and Boud (2018) suggest that feedback is better understood as an ongoing process in which meaning is actively interpreted, negotiated and acted upon over time. This is important in research environments where development is iterative and relationships are long-term. Feedback emerges across everyday interactions, formal and informal conversations.

Reframing feedback as a process shifts the responsibility from “delivering feedback well” to co-creating the conditions for meaningful engagement. A conversation where the responsibility to engage, take stock and be curious is shared between you and the recipient. This might involve asking questions, supporting reflection and enabling those receiving feedback to apply it within their own practice. Feedback becomes valuable when it is received with clarity and actively used.

Why doesn’t feedback always land?

I have often described giving and receiving feedback as a ‘tricky’ conversation. What makes it tricky is the message to be delivered in combination with the realities and pressures on both parties. This can make it complex to navigate, especially as emotional responses, anxiety and performance can all shape how feedback is experienced and received.

Stone and Heen (2015) describe three common triggers that can interfere with how feedback is experienced:

• Truth trigger: this happens when feedback feels inaccurate, unfair, oversimplified or disconnected from the researcher’s understanding of their work or reality. It may sound like: “I don’t agree with this feedback.”
• Relationship trigger: here, the response is shaped less by the feedback itself and more the relationship between the person giving and the person receiving feedback. It may sound like: “I don’t think you understand where I’m coming from.”
• Identity trigger: this is where feedback touches a deeper sense of confidence or self-perception. This is particularly important in research where identity and expertise are often closely linked (Henkel, 2005). It may sound like: “This makes me feel like I’m not good enough.”

These responses are not always distinct and often overlap. These are not rare and do not always signal resistance. They carry both emotional and intellectual weight.

This does not mean that feedback should be avoided or softened to the point of losing clarity, but it suggests that clarity alone is not effective. Recognising these triggers can reframe how we navigate these conversations. It helps to address the response to a trigger with curiosity (maybe a “help me understand”).

How can you help feedback land?

How feedback is framed, the opportunity to participate in it, and whether the researcher feels able to engage with challenge, all influence how feedback becomes meaningful and actionable. I offer you a few ‘shifts’ below on how you can support and sustain your feedback conversation.

Lead with curiosity: Using open questions can reduce defensiveness and encourage reflection. Rather than moving immediately into the focus of the feedback, it helps to first address the intentions and thinking. For example:

• What are you most pleased with here?
• Which part feels least resolved to you?
• What kind of feedback would be most useful right now?

Put psychological safety upfront: As a leader, you want to be perceived as an ally, while also allowing for candour in the dialogue. This can be a way to acknowledge and address the power imbalance that exists. Highlighting the value, intention and expectations from the conversation and asking the same, can offer a degree of control to the researcher (Johnson et al, 2020) and, support more honest engagement with challenge. For example:

• To set the scene for the conversation: I want to talk through X with you and share some feedback. How would it be of most value to you?
• What are you taking from this conversation?
• Let’s think this through together.
• How can I be of best support/value to you?

Pay attention to the assumptions you convey: Often we carry hidden assumptions about shared understanding, standards and expectations. As a Pakistani woman, with English as an additional language, I am conscious that feedback can sometimes assume a shared frame of reference that is not equally held. A practice that I have found useful is ‘decoding’ feedback: separating what is useful insight from assumption, ambiguity or convention. What feedback and sometimes advice is assuming of me to separate what is of value and what is not. For leaders, being mindful of how language might land can open more accessible and constructive conversations.

Make it future-focused: Feedback conversations with a focus on ‘next steps’ or forward-thinking can help researchers think about where they are, where they are trying to get to, and what might help to bridge that gap.

• What feels realistic to focus on when we return to this?
• What feels clearer now and where do you still need more information direction?

Add to your toolbox regularly

There is a universe of strategies and approaches around feedback (why not try feedback that doesn’t sting). You can’t fit all of them into your toolbox, so how do you choose what to pick up and try?

Every researcher is different and so is every conversation you have with them. As someone who develops researchers and research leaders, I see consistently that feedback is not something you master and apply perfectly thereafter. Perhaps that is the point: it is not something that always feels fully finished. Some conversations land well; others don’t and most sit in between. What matters is continuing to work with it. To keep ‘flexing’ this vital skill. My advice to you is to embed it as a regular practice, try a different strategy with every researcher you have feedback conversations with. This makes it a development opportunity for yourself, while also enhancing the same for your researchers; a win-win.