Constructive Controversy

Constructive controversy is an uncommon method of discussing or learning about a certain topic. It is commonly used in order to reach a consensus about a controversial topic, without having any preconceptions about it, and leading the subjects to a judicious consensus about the controversy. Constructive controversy is an interesting working method because it can often lead to the students, or subjects, learning much more than just about the topic, because it can make one defend a viewpoint which they might not share from the beginning. Constructive controversy can be seen as an application of the philosophical concept of Methodic Doubt, by René Descartes, which is described as “a way of searching for certainty by systematically though tentatively doubting everything”

Studies of the concept have found that subjects faced with an intellectual challenge, who apply the methods of constructive controversy, often attain higher-level reasoning strategies, and develop more complex and coherent conceptual structures, as well as stronger critical thinking. In these studies the concept was held up against concurrence seeking, debate and individualistic efforts, and the results showed that if constructive controversy frequently was used the subjects would be “imprinted with a pattern of intellectual inquiry that includes building coherent intellectual arguments, giving persuasive presentations, critically analysing and challenging others’ positions, rebutting others’ challenges, seeing issues from a variety of perspectives, and seeking reasoned judgements.”

This article will be written as an in-depth description of a particular method. it will include:

• Explanation of the concept

The concept will be explained in this section along with the background and origin of it.

• Step by Step guide on how to apply it

Here the six general steps of how to apply the concept will be accounted for. This section will also contain an example of the application of the concept.

• Discussion

In this section it will be discussed when it is appropriate to use the concept and what the positive and negative aspects of it can be, as well as the role of constructive controversy in project management.

History and a brief explanation of the concept

History and Origin

The concept was first discussed by Aristotle, who was of the opinion that constructing a deliberate debate of advantages and disadvantages of a specific topic would end up with a constructive solution. Earlier in society it was commonly believed that controversy was inherently destructive, and could not be used positively. Thomas Jefferson, however, believed that free and open-minded discussion should be the foundation of society, and that eventually this would lead to truth, especially if opposing points of view are advocated. Sigmund Freud also indicated that intellectual conflict was a needed factor for psychological development. The actual expression 'Constructive Controversy' comes from David W. Johnson's research. David W. Johnson is a social psychologist, currently working at the University of Minnesota. He began his research in the 1960s where he started documenting the role of intellectual conflict in instruction and decision making. He created the theory behind Constructive Controversy and on the basis of his research it is now a more much widespread method of learning than it used to be. However it is still not a common method as it requires more of its participants than other types of learning, though according to Johnson it can also yield much better results. Over the next four decades David W. Johnson, together with his brother and colleagues, would release countless articles, books and reviews on how to use constructive controversy in both decision making and for instructional purposes.

Explanation of Concept

The basis of the concept is to have two opposing sides debate each other, from a preordained point of view. This means that some team-members might be debating from a point of view they do not share, and this is essentially what makes constructive controversy an interesting concept. By debating from a viewpoint one does not share, there is a possibility of becoming more open-minded about the subject matter. It will help the participants of the exercise to put themselves into another persons shoes, and thus broadening their own horizon.

The concept of Constructive Controversy in the context of Project Management is most useful in the sense of decision making, and more useful in the earlier stages of a project. In the early phases of a project, mainly the initiation and planning phases where most of the important decisions have to be taken. Later on in the end phases, execution and closure, there won't be much use of it, unless something has gone wrong, and a new decision has to be made. However, in the early phases it can be used when a group is faced with a difficult decision. Applying the concept can help team-members seeing the problem with new eyes and help the group come to a well-reasoned and critically analysed decision.

Step by Step Guide

When people are faced with a problem or decision they will initially make a conclusion based on their own perspective, experience and rationale. This also happens when applying constructive controversy, but here they are asked to look past their own initial conclusion to see the problem from a different perspective. In the theory of constructive controversy there seems to be some disagreement on the number of steps. Some say 4, others 5 or 6. While it is the exact same process, different theorist have chosen to split it up differently. As the father of constructive controversy, D.W. Johnson, is claiming there to be 6 steps, that is what this article will describe.

1. The first step of constructive controversy is to categorize, organize and derive conclusions from the existing information and experiences.
2. The second step is actively represent and elaborate your point of view and how to arrived at it
3. The third step is being challenged by opposing views
4. After being challenged the group will feel uncertainty and disequilibrium.
5. This causes the participants to actively search for more information and try to understand the opposing position and their rationale
6. Lastly the group will incorporate their opponents information into their own reasoning, and may have a position change, or a stronger opinion of their initial point of view. This will make them transcend to higher stages of cognitive reasoning.