Epilogue
Author, George Saunders, distils his Creative Writing MFA course in a book titled A Swim in a Pond in the Rain (2016). Aimed at aspiring storytellers, it presents short stories by 19th-century Russian authors — Tolstoy, Chekhov, Turgenev and others — interwoven with Saunders’ analysis of how these writers made stories move and reflections on developing one’s unique authorial voice.
Saunders suggests that “great novels are always a little more intelligent than their authors”, describing writing as a way of opening oneself to “supra-personal wisdom” (Saunders, 2016). He notes that although Tolstoy himself could be deeply flawed, his writing conveys humanity, moral complexity and empathy. This idea resonated with me in relation to qualitative research, where meaning is constructed through deep engagement with material, context and interpretation. The data or characters are in dialogue with the researcher or author, respectively.
In reflexive qualitative analysis, the researcher is neither an inert actor nor is their subjectivity a methodological flaw to be partitioned away from the process. Rather, their positionality and interpretive lens is a necessary and essential resource that needs to be acknowledged and active in the process. Qualitative rigour is demonstrated through transparency, reflexivity and analytic responsibility rather than detachment (Braun and Clarke, 2021). Although I had conducted qualitative research previously, this project represents the first time I have formally studied qualitative methodology and theory. I became more aware of how my assumptions, values and professional background shaped both the framing of the research and my engagement with the data.
Context and Rationale
This ARP is situated within my role on the BA Product and Industrial Design course, where I felt the absence of an established system for collegial feedback among academic staff. From my perspective, this absence represented a missed opportunity for professional development, recognition and relational support. Informal conversations with colleagues appeared to reinforce this view, leading me to assume that some frustrations and strained working relationships were linked, at least in part, to a lack of structured collegial feedback practices. From this position, I initially framed the research question as:
What kind of support would help people feel comfortable and confident in providing and receiving peer-to-peer feedback?
At this early stage, I saw myself primarily as a facilitator experimenting with feedback tools and trying to understand their efficacy. I developed two hypotheses. First, that peer-to-peer feedback between staff, where individuals decide their own questions for feedback, would enable convivial and quality conversations that support recognition and professional development. Second, that a feedback toolkit would be useful in helping people generate questions and feel more confident and supported when giving feedback.
Even though this is ARP is staff focused, the project is positioned as upstream of student experience. Research on teacher professional development and collaborative professional learning indicates that sustained, relational forms of staff learning can improve teaching practice and are associated with improved student outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Ribosa et al, 2024).
The practice of individuals writing their own feedback questions was inspired by the collegial feedback practices of Camden Council’s service design team. My partner, who is a Senior Service Designer at Camden, had spoken highly about the value of these practices within her team (see her feedback form below). This style of feedback exchange applied to higher education is supported by Torres et al. (2021), who found that for feedback between teachers, it is important to agree on what each one wants to receive feedback on. I was interested in prototyping a similar feedback format, opposed to testing performance review approaches such as 360-reviews (Carson, 2006) or appraisal-based reciprocal peer observation practices because of these approaches negative impact on well-being (Ribosa et al, 2024).
Initial reading included Radical Candor (Scott, 2019) and Regenerative Leadership (Hutchins, 2019), both of which emphasise the importance of honest, empathetic feedback and sustainable relational systems. However, these texts are primarily written for managerial or leadership audiences and offer limited practical guidance for non-hierarchical, peer-led feedback practices. I treated these misalignments with my project’s objectives as a productive uncertainty to be explored through action, reflection and sense-making as the project developed.
Bibliography
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London: SAGE.
Carson, M. (2006) ‘Saying it like it isn’t: The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback’, Business Horizons, 49(5), pp. 395–402. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2006.01.004.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M.E. and Gardner, M. (2017) Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Hutchins, G. and Storm, L. (2019) Regenerative Leadership: The DNA of life-affirming 21st century organizations. WordsWorth Publishing.
Ribosa et al. (2024) ‘Teachers’ closeness of professional relationship’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 140.
Saunders, G. (2016) A Swim in a Pond in the Rain. London: Bloomsbury.
Scott, K. (2019) Radical Candor: Be a kick-ass boss without losing your humanity. London: Pan Macmillan.
Torres-Cajas, M. et al. (2021) ‘Teacher Coassessment Process in Higher Education’, Atenea (Concepción), 26(523), pp. 347–364. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29393/AtAt523-425MTTC40425.
van Blankenstein, F.M., Dirkx, K.J.H. and de Bruycker, N.M.F. (2025) ‘Ask your peer! How requests for peer feedback affect peer feedback responses’, Educational Research and Evaluation, 30(1–2), pp. 36–57.