A rebuttal to “Forget Brainstorming” in Newsweek, July 19, 2010
By Jonathan Vehar, CEF Colleague and President/Cofounder, New & Improved, LLC
Thanks Newsweek (July 19, 2010) for perpetuating one of the biggest research myths since the Loch Ness Monster. Years of research and practice shows that Brainstorming works – like any tool – when used properly. The headline and text erroneously say otherwise.
We do, however, appreciate that the author’s main article, “The Creativity Crisis.” It may well have lit a spark under the collective butt of America and may indeed reignite imagination in the spirit of Alex Osborn who coined the term brainstorming and democratized creativity around the world. Unfortunately, we (and many other scholars) believe that the article also gives a false impression about brainstorming.
To proponents of the Brainstorming technique as described in Applied Imagination and as we teach and practice it, even a cursory reading of the 1958 Yale study referenced shows that it does not disprove the effectiveness of brainstorming since the question of the research was, “does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking.”
In other words, is it better to brainstorm in a very small group or to brainstorm alone? Either way, they were testing brainstorming, and they found that brainstorming works to generate a high number of useful ideas.
The research concluded that for some things brainstorming alone works better, and by other measures (e.g. uniqueness of ideas) brainstorming in a small group works better. However, contrary to the Newsweek article, the study absolutely does not say “Forget Brainstorming,” nor does it say that “brainstorming doesn’t work” or that “the technique reduces a team’s creative output!”
While we know from subsequent correspondence with the authors that they take their research seriously, we believe that it does not show up in their treatment of brainstorming in Newsweek. This is unfortunate, since their article in the same issue, “The Creativity Crisis” was an eloquent call-t0-arms for those of us who know that creativity is important to the future success of our children and our nation.
As Alex Osborn, the father of brainstorming said in his 1953 book, Applied Imagination, “group brainstorming is recommended solely as a SUPPLEMENT to individual ideation” (p. 142, emphasis mine). In his book he spoke of the value of generating ideas as an individual, in pairs and in small groups of up to 12 people. By contrast, the Yale study only evaluates individuals and groups of four people, while acknowledging that “Osborn suggests that the optimum size for a brainstorming group is between five and ten.” (p. 47)
Certainly the Yale research was flawed because it didn’t test group brainstorming using Osborn’s description of Brainstorming (e.g. use of a trained facilitator, providing additional concepts to stimulate new ideas, working with appropriate group size, enforcement of all guidelines, etc.). Regardless of methodology, the study concluded that brainstorming works better when working alone. So why would you forget it based on one flawed and widely misrepresented study? Use research wisely.
According to research by Brian Hartman, there have been over 250 studies that evaluate the effectiveness of brainstorming. Unfortunately, several studies use the same misguided approach that the Yale study did, which is to say that they don’t use a trained facilitator to direct the group. Brainstorming is a specific tool with specific guidelines (defer judgment, etc.) that are enforced by a facilitator who guides the group’s thinking. Hartman’s (2010) conclusion is that, “it appears that a majority of the research conducted on brainstorming has been done using a technique significantly different than the one outlined by its author, Alex Osborn.”
What many people mistakenly call “brainstorming” is in fact just “a bunch of people sitting around firing off and shooting down ideas.” Let’s call that “skeet-shooting.” And on that we can agree: working individually will work better than skeet-shooting in a group.
In their quick dismissal of about half of the techniques used to spur creativity, the authors asked the question “are they good?” We’d rather they asked, “when are they good?” Is a hammer a good tool? It is when it is used to drive nails, but not when it is used to change channels of your television or to change a diaper.
The leading academic institution that has been studying what works and when is the International Center for Studies in Creativity at the State University of New York College at Buffalo. One of their faculty found that groups that were TRAINED in the guidelines of brainstorming generated two-and-a-half times more ideas than untrained groups, which resulted in (and this is the important part) two-and-a-half times more GOOD ideas, as well as a similar proportion of bad ideas (video). This is but one of a stack of research studies proving that when properly used, like a hammer, Brainstorming works. Exceedingly well.
However, when people get together and skeet-shoot, blamestorm, or clobberate, they are not brainstorming, and accordingly, their results will suffer. Perhaps common incorrect usage of the term “brainstorming” has confused the issue, but just because I call my hammer a “diaper changer,” doesn’t mean I should say it doesn’t work. It just means I’m using it incorrectly. Words mean something. Let’s use them properly.
References:
- Osborn, A.F. (1963). Applied Imagination (3rd ed.). Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.
- Firestien, R.L. & McCowan, R.J. (1988). Creative Problem Solving and Communication Behaviors in Small Groups. Creativity Research Journal, 1 (1). 106-114.
- Firestien, R.L. (1990). Effects of Creative Problem Solving on Communication Behaviors in Small Groups. Small Group Research, 21 (4). 507-521.
- Taylor, D.W., Berry, P.C., & Block, C.H. (1958). Does Group Participation When using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(1), 23-47.
- Hartman, B.D. (2010). Challenges in Testing the Effectiveness of Brainstorming. Unpublished research paper. Buffalo State College, Buffalo, NY.
A rebuttal to “Forget Brainstorming” in Newsweek, July 19, 2010
By Jonathan Vehar, President/Cofounder, New & Improved, LLC
Thanks Newsweek (July 19, 2010) for perpetuating one of the biggest research myths since the Loch Ness Monster. Years of research and practice shows that Brainstorming works – like any tool – when used properly. The headline and text erroneously say otherwise.
We do, however, appreciate that the author’s main article, “The Creativity Crisis.” It may well have lit a spark under the collective butt of America and may indeed reignite imagination in the spirit of Alex Osborn who coined the term brainstorming and democratized creativity around the world. Unfortunately, we (and many other scholars) believe that the article also gives a false impression about brainstorming.
To proponents of the Brainstorming technique as described in Applied Imagination and as we teach and practice it, even a cursory reading of the 1958 Yale study referenced shows that it does not disprove the effectiveness of brainstorming since the question of the research was, “does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking.”
In other words, is it better to brainstorm in a very small group or to brainstorm alone? Either way, they were testing brainstorming, and they found that brainstorming works to generate a high number of useful ideas.
The research concluded that for some things brainstorming alone works better, and by other measures (e.g. uniqueness of ideas) brainstorming in a small group works better. However, contrary to the Newsweek article, the study absolutely does not say “Forget Brainstorming,” nor does it say that “brainstorming doesn’t work” or that “the technique reduces a team’s creative output!”
While we know from subsequent correspondence with the authors that they take their research seriously, we believe that it does not show up in their treatment of brainstorming in Newsweek. This is unfortunate, since their article in the same issue, “The Creativity Crisis” was an eloquent call-t0-arms for those of us who know that creativity is important to the future success of our children and our nation.
As Alex Osborn, the father of brainstorming said in his 1953 book, Applied Imagination, “group brainstorming is recommended solely as a SUPPLEMENT to individual ideation” (p. 142, emphasis mine). In his book he spoke of the value of generating ideas as an individual, in pairs and in small groups of up to 12 people. By contrast, the Yale study only evaluates individuals and groups of four people, while acknowledging that “Osborn suggests that the optimum size for a brainstorming group is between five and ten.” (p. 47)
Certainly the Yale research was flawed because it didn’t test group brainstorming using Osborn’s description of Brainstorming (e.g. use of a trained facilitator, providing additional concepts to stimulate new ideas, working with appropriate group size, enforcement of all guidelines, etc.). Regardless of methodology, the study concluded that brainstorming works better when working alone. So why would you forget it based on one flawed and widely misrepresented study? Use research wisely.
According to research by Brian Hartman, there have been over 250 studies that evaluate the effectiveness of brainstorming. The vast majority demonstrate Brainstorming’s efficacy. Unfortunately, several studies use the same misguided approach that the Yale study did, which is to say that they don’t use a trained facilitator to direct the group. Brainstorming is a specific tool with specific guidelines (defer judgment, etc.) that are enforced by a facilitator who guides the group’s thinking.
What many people mistakenly call “brainstorming” is in fact just “a bunch of people sitting around firing off and shooting down ideas.” Let’s call that “skeet-shooting.” And on that we can agree: working individually will work better than skeet-shooting in a group.
In their quick dismissal of about half of the techniques used to spur creativity, the authors asked the question ”are they good?” We’d rather they asked, “when are they good?” Is a hammer a good tool? It is when it is used to drive nails, but not when it is used to change channels of your television or to change a diaper.
The leading academic institution that has been studying what works and when is the International Center for Studies in Creativity at the State University of New York College at Buffalo. One of their faculty found that groups that were TRAINED in the guidelines of brainstorming generated two-and-a-half times more ideas than untrained groups, which resulted in (and this is the important part) two-and-a-half times more GOOD ideas, as well as a similar proportion of bad ideas. This is but one of a stack of research studies proving that when properly used, like a hammer, Brainstorming works. Exceedingly well.
However, when people get together and skeet-shoot, blamestorm, or clobberate, they are not brainstorming, and accordingly, their results will suffer. Perhaps common incorrect usage of the term “brainstorming” has confused the issue, but just because I call my hammer a “diaper changer,” doesn’t mean I should say it doesn’t work. It just means I’m using it incorrectly. Words mean something. Let’s use them properly.
References:
Osborn, A.F. (1963). Applied Imagination (3rd ed.). Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.
Firestien, R.L. & McCowan, R.J. (1988). Creative Problem Solving and Communication Behaviors in Small Groups. Creativity Research Journal, 1 (1). 106-114.
Firestien, R.L. (1990). Effects of Creative Problem Solving on Communication Behaviors in Small Groups. Small Group Research, 21 (4). 507-521.
Taylor, D.W., Berry, P.C., & Block, C.H. (1958). Does Group Participation When using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(1), 23-47.
