Saving Face: Politeness Strategies in Peer

Reviews

Megan K. MizeODU

Negotiating the

Graduate Experience

Peer review functions as a face threatening

activity (FTA):social and professional

Editing.

What is “Face”?• “Face is the public self-image that every member wants to claim for

himself” (Brown and Levinson 61) • “The negotiated public image, mutually granted each other by

participants in a communicative event” (Scollon 45). • “Something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost,

maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction” (Brown and Levinson 66).

Politeness Systems“Interpersonal Politeness and Power”: Ron and

Suzanne Scollon

• Identity construction within a particular situation determined by power, distance, and weight of imposition.

• Three common politeness systems: deference, solidarity, and hierarchal.

Politeness in Peer Review“Compliments and Politeness in Peer-review Texts”:

Donna Johnson

• “The interpersonal relationship between the reviewer and the reviewed strongly influences how a review is written” (51).

• Distance is a central factor: the closer the reviewer to the writer, the more likely that reviewer is to rely on compliments and polite gestures in critique.

• “Interpersonal goals in writing become just as important as issues of substantive content” (51).

• Thus, the compliment becomes a tool that enables colleagues to critique one another’s work while maintaining a positive rapport.

Case Study

*Actual Students Not Pictured In a case study involving four graduate students, one may witness the way interpersonal dynamics influences their responses. The reviews reveal patterns in which students express self-doubt and deprecation as a means of softening the more critical aspects of their response.

Prior to the Review: Introductory Comments

• Student A: “Thank you so much for taking the time to try to slog through my notes”

• Student B: “Well for better or for worse this is what I have… Pardon the unfamiliar theory at the beginning, but hopefully I explain it clearly enough, and if not I need to know that too.”

• Student C: “All right, ladies, I'm adding my draft with the greatest reluctance, but I simply can't bear to work on it anymore today… I hope that the slog through my paper isn't too painful.”

• Student D: “I will pre-warn you all, this is a VERY rough draft and I also feel I am a bit repetitive”

aNTICIPATING cRITIQUE• By acknowledging their papers are

flawed, the students pose as humble, knowledgable, and vulnerable.

• An inappropriate response to any one of these posts would be to state unequivocally that the reviewee was correct in her original claim that the paper was flawed.

• “Ladies”: an effort to decrease the distance between the participants by implying the students are part of an identifiable group.

• Such comments demonstrate involvement, creating a parallel position for the reviewer, making her appear less potential threatening to the writer’s face.

“Optional” Assignment• Students express gratitude for the

others’ participation, posturing as though the assignment was an optional activity.

• Acknowledges weight of imposition.

• Students re-write the assignment in terms of collegial exchange, thereby increasing the likelihood of more sophisticated and detailed responses.

• The peer review is scripted as a mutually agreed upon endeavor between valued and respected friends.

“This is Great, but...”• Pattern: FTAs are softened with

compliments regarding the work as a whole, as well as self-deprecation and blame.

• “Good news/ bad news pairing”

• Student C’s response to A: “I remembered a bit late that you had scrapped your original approach, so forgive my comments referencing the proposal speak… I particularly like the emphasis on the individualized experience...” Student C signs the post “a fan of your work.”

• Student B : “I really think you’re are doing something very interesting!  Hope [the feedback] helps”

Damning with Great

PraiseDiane Belcher suggests, “The more damning the intended criticism, the more extravagant the prefatory praise will be” (147).

Student A:

“I think you're off to an awesome start here!...Overall, I think you're on the right track, just maybe work on your transitions between sentences and/or paragraphs… As far as your topic - I think you've got a goldmine of material to work with, but - like with my paper as well - you need to just choose your battles carefully and make sure you pick the best-of-the-best of points to elucidate on!”

Good News/Bad News• Student B: “Wow … this is ambitious

and impressive. I like how you are trying to add to the theoretical here. My only thought is maybe we need a bit more of an intro as to why this is a needed or helpful thing before you jump in.”

• Student C: “Love the imagery, but you offer two analogies at the end of each of the last two sentences.”

• Each reviewer concludes their review with similar sentiments, pointing towards typos and grammar errors with confidence, then redressing that critique with the claim that the draft shows promise.

Student B to Student C:“I cannot claim in any way that my brain is

functioning at its normal capacity. I am still exhausted!!!!  So take what I say with my diminished capacity in mind and feel free to ask for any clarifications.”

Student C’s to Student B’s paper: “Your paper is doing some very

sophisticated analysis, and may help me ponder my own approach. As with the others, I've added some editing suggestions, but they're the sort of thing you'd have caught on your own in the end.”

“I’m Sure It’s Just Me...”Diminished Distance

“This may just be me, so take this with a huge grain of salt”

“…this may just be a different writing style that I am not accustomed to myself, so I could be very off base”

“Man, I’m questioning myself left and right here”

“I’d avoid contraction use in a formal paper- sorry the comp teacher is coming out,” “Sorry I’m asking so many questions,” and “…this might just be me…”

“You've got an interesting start. I offered some editing suggestions, which may be more reflective of my style, which I'm told is elitist and old-school so you can take it or leave it”

When Politeness Emerges

Regarding spelling or citations errors, concepts that are identified as “correct” or “incorrect,” students did not qualify their critiques.

The reviewer tends to qualify comments on a subjective concept, such as style or ideology, projecting some deficiency onto herself, working to prevent damage to the participants’ rapport.

“It’s Me, not you” Posturing:

Vulnerable writers, Cautious Reviewers • Apparent lack of self confidence is not perceived as authentic by the

students.

• Students posture as unsure, yet leave the commentary in, indicating that they do believe it has value; the writer likely does not dismiss the reviewer’s commentary as being the cautious ramblings of an insecure individual.

• Posture is an extension of the original pose assumed in the prefatory comments, in which the students are vulnerable writers.

• As cautious reviewers, the students avoid appearing overly confident, hedging their criticism in such a way that if the other student disagreed or took offense, the interpersonal connection would not be damaged.

• Should writer should disagree with the reviewer’s suggestions, the reviewer avoids the embarrassment of appearing overtly assertive about the disputed suggestion.

Further Questions

How has this shared strategy emerged? Where do students learn it?

Is it possible that self-deprecation is a gendered politeness strategy?

Is this strategy shared across cultures?

Would it damage the relationship between participants from different cultures, especially if one participant took the cautious posture at face value?

SignificanceAs instructors, by acknowledging such tensions and the

ways students navigate them, we may strive to lessen the potential threat, creating an academic environment that enables more effective peer reviews in multiple contexts and levels.

Peer Review:Students’ Pretty Faces