A draft-reviewing lens

When doing higher degrees by research (HDR in Australia) we usually get assigned a supervisor, though more modern programmes now term supervisors an 'advisor'. We can ask our advisor/supervisor for feedback on our ideas, our thinking, our sources, our method, our approaches, and our draft work as we go, and - while the decisions we make are entirely our own - we have them to guide us because they have field and research expertise well above our own. We work under a master so we too can gain mastery in our chosen field.

So when we submit a draft for review, our advisor will - in what is pretty standard review technique - annotate our script and return it to us as part of the on-going, continuous improvement process of refining our journeyman piece of work. We then need to consider our advisor's annotations, and there is a lens through which we can sort each type of annotation (Jibbity jobby, 2017):

1. Correction: "The comment is justified [so] I can [make the change] (≈90%)"
2. Clarification 1: "The comment asks for clarification of the text [of the draft, so I need to write a clarification] (≈4%)"
3. Clarification 2: "The comment is not justified due to them misunderstanding my text, due to my text not having been written in a clear and/or unambiguous enough manner [so I need to write a clarification] (≈3%)"
4. Potential error: "The comment is not justified and the text is clear [so I need to (a) clarify what I may be missing and (b) discuss with my advisor] (≈3%)"

With these advisor annotations, we should only apply those suggestions which we understand. We should be able to have open and curious discussions with our advisor on any points that we are unsure of. We will discover over time when to politely and firmly defend our position: and while we may be sometimes persuaded to shift, a rigorous and objective debate about meaning can be engaging, energising and constructive. We MUST let go of our sacred cows when the evidence is against us... or when there is insufficient evidence.

While the percentages allocated to each lens are not research-based, but are simply a mental estimate - approximately equal to - by the writer, I think this taxonomy of correction types is very useful for us. The overall effect is that an advisor is right 97% of the time in their comments. That is a pretty fair quality standard. And, as the candidate will be seeking their significant original contribution to knowledge (SOCK), it should only be expected that the advisor may find their specific field knowledge lacking.

These need better names, but I am sure someone will give these some more thought. 

Sam

References:

Jibbity jobby. (2017, June 17). Etiquette for dealing with supervisor comments on written work. Academia. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90985/etiquette-for-dealing-with-supervisor-comments-on-written-work