OFFERING Generous and Fruitful FEEDBACK

adapted from Liz Lermans Critical Response Method &

The Fields Fieldwork guide for responding to works-in-progress

Critical feedback for creative work is challenging to give and to receive. When done well, it should
provide material that inspires the maker to want to work more on the project, work better, and to
have more tools to work with. The following process adapts practices developed by artists to create
supportive conversations around work in development that sends the maker running back to the
studio/workshop/lab, eager to bring their project to its fullest realization.
Roles Steps for engaging in generous, fruitful feedback
Maker 1. Observations & statements of meaning
Prepared to question ones work The first step is about returning the care of the maker by sharing what the
in dialogue. Key in this role is to responders actually experienced, and what they found meaningful.
present the work without caveats, Facilitator starts by asking responders:
hedges, or preambles; to remem- State the obvious about what was shared
ber that receiving feedback is What do you remember most vividly from what you saw/experienced?
a gift, and to take it in as useful What has meaning for you about the work presented?
material for your process; and to What was stimulating, surprising, evocative, memorable, touching,
be specific about what you want unique, compelling, meaningful?
from responders.
2. Maker as questioner
Responder While step 1 grounds the conversation in what is at stake, what is mean-
Prepared to engage in thoughtful, ingful, and what is present in the work, step 2 gives the maker a chance to
compassionate dialogue about gather more information about what the work is actually communicating,
Makers work, to support their and whats supporting or detracting from the goals of the work. In this step,
process. Key in this role is to try to the maker asks the responders questions. Usually, the more specfic the
accept the work on its own terms, questions, the more fruitful the feedback. Good questions are often around
and enter the work from the what was confusing and what was clear, if the work reminded them of other
world it inhabits; to reveal more works, or for thoughts/reactions to aspects of the work that were not men-
about the work than yourself in tioned in step 1.
your comments; to give the kind
3. Neutral questions from responders
of feedback that you find helpful
Questions about the work can be extremely helpful to get the maker
yourself.
thinking about their project in new ways, but often questions can be
Facilitator opinions in disguise. Example: Why is the cake so dry? OR What kind of tex-
Prepared to support the overall ture were you going for with this cake? The former implies that dryness is not
process by keeping track of time, a good quality for cakes, whereas the latter asks the maker to reflect on what
moving the participants through they had in mind versus what they heard from the responders that they ex-
the steps, and helping both makers perienced. In this step, the responders ask the maker neutral questions,
and responders stay present and with the goal of opening up rather than directing ideas of what the work
accountable. should/could be. Just as asking neutral questions is challenging for the
responders, answering those questions can be challenging for the maker.
The maker should ask for clarification when needed, and try to answer without
judgement or defensiveness. The facilitator should help both parties
come to thoughtful/thought-provoking, neutral questions, and substantive/
specific answers.
4. Permissioned opinions
Sometimes opinions can be critical to the maker, but sometimes they can
short-circuit the problem-solving process. In this step, the facilitator invites
responders to share their opinions, but following a protocol. The responders
name the topic of their opinion, for example, I have an opinion about
the color palette, do you want to hear it? The maker can decide, yes or
no, depending on their more intimate knowledge of their process.