The Brainstorm Myth and what really does work

I found this interesting article on the myth of the brainstorm through my good friend Wannes (@doubleyouone).

Some quotes:

Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, has summarized the science: “Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.”

What is true is that we gradually have teamed up more, especially in science where the silent solitary genius no longer exists. And there are opportunities when working together, but they differ from traditional brainstorming:

In 2003, Charlan Nemeth, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, divided two hundred and sixty-five female undergraduates into teams of five. She gave all the teams the same problem—“How can traffic congestion be reduced in the San Francisco Bay Area?”—and assigned each team one of three conditions. The first set of teams got the standard brainstorming spiel, including the no-criticism ground rules. Other teams—assigned what Nemeth called the “debate” condition—were told, “Most research and advice suggest that the best way to come up with good solutions is to come up with many solutions. Freewheeling is welcome; don’t be afraid to say anything that comes to mind. However, in addition, most studies suggest that you should debate and even criticize each other’s ideas.” The rest received no further instructions, leaving them free to collaborate however they wanted. All the teams had twenty minutes to come up with as many good solutions as possible.

The results were telling. The brainstorming groups slightly outperformed the groups given no instructions, but teams given the debate condition were the most creative by far. On average, they generated nearly twenty per cent more ideas. And, after the teams disbanded, another interesting result became apparent. Researchers asked each subject individually if she had any more ideas about traffic. The brainstormers and the people given no guidelines produced an average of three additional ideas; the debaters produced seven.

Furthermore, the article describes the importance of knowledge workers working together in the area so they can meet, but at a good distance so they do not interfere.

The best research was consistently produced when scientists were working within ten metres of each other; the least cited papers tended to emerge from collaborators who were a kilometre or more apart. “If you want people to work together effectively, these findings reinforce the need to create architectures that support frequent, physical, spontaneous interactions,” Kohane says. “Even in the era of big science, when researchers spend so much time on the Internet, it’s still so important to create intimate spaces.”

Do read the article, it is also very insightful on the architecture of workplaces and schools!
Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Education, Marketing, Myths

4 responses to “The Brainstorm Myth and what really does work

  1. Pingback: Infographic on brainstorming (and why it’s not so effective) | From experience to meaning...

  2. Pingback: Helen Abadzi about the links between neuroscience, cognitive psychology and creativity (video) | From experience to meaning...

  3. Pingback: Stimulating creativity effectively… via explicit instruction | From experience to meaning...

  4. Pingback: Ready for some debate? Study suggests too much structured knowledge can hurt creativity | From experience to meaning...

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s