Here's how you can give effective feedback to colleagues in an academic setting.

Before providing feedback, show genuine interest in their goals demonstrates respect and empathy. It show you care about their professional journey and are not just critiquing their work.

It depends on the culture you're in. In Western settings, it's perfectly fine to critique senior academics. However, in cultures like China or Taiwan, you will be committing career suicide to ask questions that embarrass senior academics.

The best way to do so, is by engaging the feedback with a future goal or aim, to make sure feedback was effective and understandable in a practical way. This method truly spots on whether the exact information was understood correctly or misinterpreted.

In the academic setting, institutions prioritize quality improvement through self-assessment and self-reflection, aspects that are largely incorporated into individuals and members of the university community. This creates space for feedback on colleagues' results to be framed within established guidelines. In this sense, we cannot lose perspective on the context of the evaluation.

Specificity shows that you have thoroughly considered their work and are committed to helping them improve. Constructive feedback builds rather than breaks down confidence.

Effective feedback to colleagues in an academic setting requires a balanced, constructive approach that fosters professional growth and maintains positive working relationships. Once you have established that your feedback is required make sure to stick to facts, examples, and lessons learned. Steer clear from dragging personality traits into the mix, and it should go without saying, don't be rude. Offer clear, practical advice on how to improve. Avoid vague statements and provide concrete steps or strategies your colleague can implement. Schedule follow-up meetings to discuss progress and provide ongoing support. This demonstrates that you care; it reflects your commitment to their development and helps track improvements over time.

Being specific in feedback is essential for promoting effective improvements. Clearly detailing positive points and areas for improvement helps the recipient understand exactly what needs to be adjusted. This makes the feedback more useful and facilitates concrete actions for continuous development.

First, begin by asking if they want feedback. Unsolicited feedback might not be well-received unless you know a colleague well. Most of the job of criticism is in framing questions that lead them to a better outcome:"I wondered what would happen if you would have framed something this way." Also, I always assign someone to give feedback on a certain piece of my writing, speaking, and publications: "Would you mind taking a look at my flow of content" and "Would you mind looking at my sources and citations."

Em vez de comentários genéricos, forne?a exemplos concretos que ilustram suas observa??es. Aborde pontos positivos primeiro, destacando aspectos específicos que foram bem executados, e depois ofere?a sugest?es de melhoria de maneira construtiva e detalhada. Use linguagem clara e objetiva, evitando ambiguidades. Ao ser específico, você facilita o entendimento do feedback e proporciona aos colegas uma base sólida para o desenvolvimento e aprimoramento contínuo, promovendo um ambiente de aprendizado e crescimento mútuo.

The whole enterprise of providing criticism is to improve, so there's no reason why there needs to be a "balance of positivity." Every comment can be positive, pointing out how there is growth opportunity. The sooner we see failures or shortcoming in our own work as opportunities to improve, we become better educators.

Host a coffee hour online or in person to discuss work with a group of cooperative peers. The key word here is "cooperative" because cooperation usually assumes trust. If there is no trust and no cooperation between peers, feedback will be less effective. The best way to do this is to have everyone participate by rotating presentations, floating new ideas or project proposals or translations, or whatever else a colleague is working on.

If a dialogue is one sided, it’s more of a command or a higher form of saying what to do and not to do. With this, you’d never know how one feels about the feedback or how satisfied he/she is about being understood well. Meanwhile, a 2-sided dialogue engages experience exchange, more perspective, new possible understanding and add to experience.. besides, more assurance on the effectivity of the conversation