My dissertation research was on idea integration in electronic brainstorming groups; Jonah Lehrer's definition of creativity also emphasizes combination and integration of idea.His book and the New Yorker article on Jan. 2012, has provoked many responses from those who believe Jonah Lehrer has inadequately addressed (or in some cases misused) the scientific literature on brainstorming. In particular, Lehrer's advocating "Debate & Dissent" as an alternative to brainstorming for achieving creativity is believed to not be scientifically grounded.
For instance, Scott Burkun rebuttal raises several points including the need for having a skillful group leader, motivated & smart individuals, and phasing the ideation process to allow a safe-time when idea divergence is encouraged.
Here I provide some additions to this interesting discussion:
- it is true that having two separate phases of idea divergence and convergence helps (Shalley & Zhou 2007). Allowing divergence helps with creating ideas that are far apart from each other, and when those ideas are shared, they are likely to activate concepts in associative memory that are far apart from each other. And when that happens the likelihood of generating creative ideas increases (Santanen, Briggs, & deVreede 2004). This, of course, assumes that individuals attend to each others' ideas, they process those ideas and the use those ideas for creating combinative or integrative ideas.
- Second, having a safe-time when critique/debate is not allowed is good. During the safe-time evaluation apprehension is decreased and individuals are more likely to generate divergent ideas or ideas that are perceived as not-very-useful. But as Scott Burkun notes, not-very-useful ideas may stimulate generation of very useful ideas. This is again based on the assumptions that individuals attend to each other and process each others' ideas.
- The above two points both require attending and processing ideas of others. This is when different forms of intervention can help, and one of them is using facilitators. Faciltiators can encourage generation of more ideas by providing a social comparion mechansim (Santanen, Briggs, & deVreede 2004). Facilitators can control flow ideas to make sure individuals are not overwhelmed as we know cognitive overload hampers creativity. Facilitators can encourage debate and dissent when it can improve ideas. Facilitators can encourage idea integration during the safe-time because idea integration can contribute to the divergent idea generation process. If individuals attend to each others' idea and improve them (in a controlled manner) then that may change the directions of divergence and improve the idea generation process outcomes.
- I have to agree with some of the commentators on Scott Burkun's post that it takes practice to do it right. I happen to subscribe to the situationalists' view of creativity (Shneiderman 2003). The combination of some mediocare ideas may turn out to be a brilliant idea and thus what we need is motivated and open-minded individuals who are willing to think, attend, and process. One can imagine that an environment like Bldg. 20 in MIT built in Kansas if managed well may eventually become the locus of many great and innovative ideas. But I understand Soctt Burkun's point that Jonah Lehrer's approach of using this one building as evidence is flawed.
As an Information Systems researcher, I look for ways to use computers as an instrument to promote idea combination and integration. In my next post, I explain this in detail.
Incomplete List of References:
- Santanen, E.L., R.O.Briggs, & G.J. de Vreede (2004). Causal relationships in creative problem solving: Comparing facilitation interventions for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4): 167-197.
- Shalley C. & Zhou J.(2007). Handbook of Organizational Creativity, Ed.
- Shneiderman, Ben (2003). Human Needs and The New Computational Technologies. The MIT Press.
