About Politeness, Face, and Feedback: Exploring Resident and Faculty Perceptions of How Institutional Feedback Culture Influences Feedback Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore resident and faculty perspectives on what constitutes feedback culture, their perceptions of how institutional feedback culture (including politeness concepts) might influence the quality and impact of feedback, feedback seeking, receptivity, and readiness to engage in bidirectional feedback. METHOD: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, five focus group discussions with internal medicine residents, three focus group discussions with general medicine faculty, and eight individual interviews with subspecialist faculty were conducted at Brigham and Women's Hospital between April and December 2016. Discussions and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim; concurrent data collection and analysis were performed using the constant comparative approach. Analysis was considered through the lens of politeness theory and organizational culture. RESULTS: Twenty-nine residents and twenty-two general medicine faculty participated in focus group discussions, and eight subspecialty faculty participated in interviews. The institutional feedback culture was described by participants as (1) a culture of politeness, in which language potentially damaging to residents' self-esteem was discouraged; and (2) a culture of excellence, in which the institution's outstanding reputation and pedigree of trainees inhibited constructive feedback. Three key themes situated within this broader cultural context were discovered: normalizing constructive feedback to promote a culture of growth, overcoming the mental block to feedback seeking, and hierarchical culture impeding bidirectional feedback. CONCLUSIONS: An institutional feedback culture of excellence and politeness may impede honest, meaningful feedback and may impact feedback seeking, receptivity, and bidirectional feedback exchanges. It is essential to understand the institutional feedback culture before it can be successfully changed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".