Verified by 
Creativity
Have You Had a Good Argument Recently?
The theory and research on constructive controversy tells you how.
Posted November 18, 2015
“NO! NO! NO! NO!” yelled one artist to another as he viewed what the other had painted during the day. “This is not what we are trying to do!”
“This is what we talked about this morning!” the other replied. “This is exactly what we are trying to achieve!”
Such heated discussions were common between two of the greatest painters of the early 20th Century. They had an intense creative collaboration filled with conflict. From about 1908 to 1912, they saw each other almost every day, talked constantly about the revolutionary new style they were developing, and painted as similarly as possible. They dressed alike, in mechanics’ clothes, and jokingly compared themselves to the Wright brothers (Orville and Wilbur).
Many of their paintings from those years were indistinguishable. They were deeply committed to their goal of creating a new style of painting. Usually, they would meet for breakfast to discuss what they planned to paint during the day, then spend all day painting separately. Each evening, they would rush to the other’s apartment to view what the other had done and passionately criticized what they saw. A painter’s painting was not finished until the other painter said it was. The disagreements and conflicts over the nature and direction of their work were intense, spirited, illuminating, and remarkable. One of the painters described it as climbing a mountain together, being roped together, knowing their survival depended on each other. The other stated that the things they said to each other would never be said again, and even if they were, no one would understand what was meant anymore.
The two artists were Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso. The new style they were creating was Cubism. Their success in doing so resulted from their mutual commitment to the goal of creating Cubism and their intense intellectual disagreements and arguments about how to proceed. This combination of commitment to a mutual goal and intellectual conflict is known as constructive controversy (Johnson, 2015).
Constructive controversy is the conflict that arises when one person's ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another person, and the two seek to reach an agreement. Controversies are resolved by engaging in what Aristotle called deliberate discourse (i.e., the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of proposed actions) aimed at synthesizing novel solutions (i.e., creative problem solving). Engaging in constructive controversy tends to result in many positive outcomes, including better decisions, greater creativity, and higher-level cognitive and moral reasoning. A procedure for engaging in constructive controversy consists of the following steps:
1. Research and prepare a position. Each alternative course of action is assigned to a two-person advocacy team. The advocacy teams are given time to (a) research their assigned alternative course of action and find all the supporting evidence available, (b) organize their findings into a coherent and reasoned position, and (c) plan how to present their case so that all group members give it a fair and complete hearing, understand it, and are convinced of its validity.
2. Present and advocate their position. Each advocacy pair presents its position forcefully, sincerely, and persuasively. Other group members listen carefully and critically, but with an open mind.
3. Engage in an open discussion. Each advocacy pair (a) continues to advocate its position, (b) attempts to refute opposing positions, and (c) rebuts attacks on its position. Each alternative course of action is thus given a “trial by fire.”
4. Reverse perspectives. Advocacy pairs reverse perspectives and present one another’s positions. In arguing for the opposing position, group members summarize it in a forceful, sincere, and persuasive way. They add any new information that the opposing pairs did not think to present. They strive to see the issue from all perspectives simultaneously.
5. Reach a decision through consensus. Group members drop all advocacy and integrate what they know into a reasoned decision to which all members agree. This requires reconceptualizing the issue by synthesizing and integrating the best information and reasoning from all sides. The group's decision then reflects their best reasoned judgment.
The implications of the work on constructive controversy include the following. When making an important decision or deriving an important conclusion, seek out people who think differently from you, and who will argue against what you are thinking. Decide whether the person’s opposition is rational or irrational. Then engage in a discussion with rational opposers following the procedure for constructive controversy. Doing so will tend to improve the quality and creativity of your decision and conclusions. It will also make your life more fun and interesting.
References
Johnson, D. W. (2015). Constructive controversy: Theory, research, and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2007). Creative controversy: Academic conflict in the classroom (4th Ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
