Parallel to theme generation, there’s a deductive turn in methodology, placing the inductively generated themes back into dialogue with existing scholarship. This is not an attempt to apply theory to the data in a confirmatory sense, but to use theory as a way of sharpening interpretation, building pragmatic scaffolding, and perhaps expanding or uncovering new or even more nuanced ways of interpreting the data.
The reflexive thematic analysis process elucidates that participants respond less to feedback as a discrete activity and more to the relational conditions within which feedback takes place. Collegial feedback functions as an expression of relational infrastructure rather than a standalone technique. Where partnerships are anchored in meaningful, growth-oriented work, feedback is experienced as specific, timely and actionable. Where such relational anchoring is absent, feedback risks becoming perfunctory or emotionally burdensome.
Treating collegial feedback as relational labour rather than as a technical intervention reframes what support is needed. It helps explain why imposed or generic feedback initiatives often feel misaligned, while voluntary, purpose-driven partnerships are more likely to endure. Sustained learning behaviours depend on individuals’ willingness to engage in interpersonal risk in contexts they experience as meaningful and safe (Edmondson, 1999; 2018). In this framing, feedback is not the starting point but the outcome of relationships that make vulnerability, candour and mutual investment possible.
Edmondson’s work on psychological safety reframes safety as a dynamic feature of organisational culture, but as something that “is shaped through ongoing interpersonal interactions” (Edmondson, 2018). This perspective resonates strongly with participants’ accounts, where hesitancy around feedback is not an unwillingness for this type of exchange, but a concern about its personal relevance and relational alignment that could lead to resentment. Safety is experienced as relational, sustained through reciprocity, follow-up and shared context rather than assumed as a starting condition.
Emotional and affective labour explain why these relational conditions carry such weight. Akama’s work on relational and participatory practice highlights how “relational and affective labour often remains invisible, even though it is central to sustaining participatory and collaborative practices” (Akama, 2015). Participants’ accounts depict how this labour can go unvalidated. At programme or institutional levels, informal collegial feedback or partnerships are not necessarily recognised as “job work”, echoing Akama’s argument that such labour is routinely unacknowledged.
Feedback, in this sense, is not simply informational exchange but a form of care work that requires recognition and reciprocity in order to remain viable. As Akama argues, “designing with others involves ethical responsibility for how relationships are formed, maintained, and sustained” (2015). Alongside the themes, collegial feedback emerges as an ethically charged relational practice rather than a neutral professional skill.
Here are the “finalised” themes:
Akama, Y. (2015a) Invisible designing: Emotional and affective labour in relational participatory practices. In: DiSalvo, C., Light, A., Hirsch, T., Le Dantec, C.A., Goodman, E. and Hill, K. (eds.) Participatory design for learning: Perspectives from practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 57–72.
Akama, Y. (2015b) ‘Being awake to relational work: Designing for relationality in participatory practice’. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T 2015). New York: ACM, pp. 1–10.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London: SAGE
Edmondson, A.C. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383.
Edmondson, A.C. (2018) Psychological safety in health care and education organizations: A comparative perspective. Harvard Business School Working Paper.
Jackson, A.Y. and Mazzei, L.A. (2012) Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London: Routledge.