The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)
Page 16
CONCLUSION
With quite distinct strategies, the Equality Trust, the Brooklyn Friends School, and Praxis expand our cultural understanding of how social policies, social movements, and work-based organizations can be redesigned to diminish inequality gaps, contest privilege, deepen cooperation, and maximize participation. The Equality Trust argues that policies and procedures that encourage organizations to pledge to threshold inequality gaps will alter social arrangements, and they have much evidence to back them up. The leadership of the Brooklyn Friends School has explored how a school can fundamentally transform its culture, challenging white privilege and endorsing diversity, through the painstaking work of individual and institutional consciousness raising. Praxis Consulting facilitates processes whereby traditional organizations can be reengineered to enhance economic interdependence, democratize ownership, diversify leadership, and cultivate the dynamics of shared fate.
Each of these organizations has bold leadership, processes for democratic participation, and a strong and relentless goal to challenge privilege and build diverse equitable communities, and each is linked to a broader social movement for redistribution: the inequality gap campaign, the white allies’ antiracist movement, and struggles for labor justice and B Corporations. Each organization also confronts internal and external resistance and yet persists, fueled by a vision of redistribution, radical inclusion, and deep participation.
We end ironically hopeful in these dark days of political filibuster, stalemates, counterrevolutions, war, violence, and Wall Street abuse. Diverse coalitions are mobilizing globally and locally on the streets in the halls of Congress and Parliament, through social media and Twitter, in for-profit and nonprofit workplaces, schools, community based organizations, universities, and union halls—contesting inequality, challenging privilege, and building always precarious nests for solidarity and sustainability. As researchers, consultants, educators, and practitioners, we have a responsibility to pierce the anesthetizing weight of inevitability, circulate images of equity, educate the public about these sweet experiments in democratic ownership and equitable wage structures, and provoke our collective imagination for what could be a far more democratic, just, and participatory society.
References
AFL-CIO. (2013). Corporate paywatch: CEO pay and you. Retrieved from http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You
Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York: Morrow.
Burton, M., & Kagan, C. (2009). Towards a really social psychology: Liberation psychology beyond Latin America. In M. Montero and C. C. Sonn (eds.), Psychology of liberation: Theory and practice (pp. 51–72). New York: Springer.
Chomsky, N. (2003, November 29) Interview with Tim Adams. Observer. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/nov/30/highereducation.internationaleducationnews
Crabtree, S. (2011, July 22). Wall Street takes aim at new transparency rule for executive pay. TPM. Retrieved from http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/wall_street_takes_aim_at_dodd-frank_exec_pay_rule.php
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–150.
Fine, M., & Ruglis, J. (2009). Circuits and consequences of dispossession: The racialized realignment of the public sphere for US youth. Transforming Anthropology, 17(1), 20–33.
Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Elizabeth, L., & Goldsmith, S. A. (2010). Eyes wide open. In L. Elizabeth & S. A. Goldsmith (Eds.), What we see: Advancing the observations of Jane Jacobs (pp. xxi–xxvi). Oakland, CA: New Village Press.
hooks, b. (1989) Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston: South End Press.
Iyer, A., & Ryan, M. K. (2009). Why do men and women challenge gender discrimination in the workplace? The role of group status and in-group identification in predicting pathways to collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 791–814.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.
Keshet, Y. K. (2006). Checkpoint watch: Testimonies from occupied Palestine. New York: Zed Books.
Konrad, M., Vyleta, M. L., Theis, F. J., Stock, M., Tragust, S., Klatt, M., . . . Cremer, S. (2012). Social transfer of pathogenic fungus promotes active immunisation in ant colonies. PLoS Biology, 10(4), e1001300. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001300
Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about in-group advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1232–1245.
Martin-Baro, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Opotow, S. (2011). How this was possible: Interpreting the Holocaust. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 205–224. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2010.01694.x
Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2005). Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1–14.
Pratto, F., & Stewart, A. L. (2012). Group dominance and the half-blindness of privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 28–45.
ROC United. (2012). Taking the high road: A how-to guide for successful restaurants. New York City: ROC United Restaurant Opportunity Center Research Report. Retrieved from http://rocunited.org/
Shatel, T. (1986, December 14). The unknown Barry Switzer: Poverty, tragedy built Oklahoma City coach as a winner. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986–12–14/sports/8604030680_1_big-eight-coach-aren-t-many-coaches-oklahoma
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stetsenko, A. (2012). Personhood: An activist project of historical becoming through collaborative pursuits of social transformation. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 144–153.
Subašić, E., Schmitt, M. T., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). Are we all in this together? Co-victimization, inclusive social identity and collective action in solidarity with the disadvantaged. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 707–725.
Tajfel, H. (1975). The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change: Notes on the social psychology of intergroup relations. Social Science Information, 14(2), 101–118.
Tatum, B. D. (2003). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York: Basic Books.
Torre, M. E. (2009). Participatory action research and critical race theory: Fueling spaces for nos-otras to research. The Urban Review, 41(1), 106–120.
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151–176.
Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2011). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Burns & Oates.
Wise, T. (2007). White like me. Booklyn, NY: Soft Skull Press.
CHAPTER FOUR
CONSTRUCTIVE CONTROVERSY The Value of Intellectual Opposition
David W. Johnson
Roger T. Johnson
Dean Tjosvold
Since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinion that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
—John Stuart Mill
An airline flight crew is taking its large passenger jet with over 150 people on board in for a landing. The instruments indicate the plane is still five thousand feet above the ground, and
the pilot sees no reason to doubt their accuracy. The copilot thinks the instruments are malfunctioning and the plane is actually much lower. Will this disagreement endanger the passengers and crew by distracting the pilot and copilot from their duties? Or will it illuminate a problem and increase the safety of everyone on board?
We know what Thomas Jefferson would have said. He noted, “Difference of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiry to truth.” Jefferson had a deep faith in the value and productiveness of constructive controversy. He is not alone. Conflict theorists of many persuasions have posited that conflict could have positive as well as negative benefits. Freud, for example, indicated that extra psychic conflict was a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for psychological development. Developmental psychologists have proposed that disequilibrium within a student’s cognitive structure can motivate a shift from egocentrism to accommodation of the perspectives of others and what results is a transition from one stage of cognitive and moral reasoning to another. Motivational theorists believe that conceptual conflict can create epistemic curiosity, which motivates the search for new information and the reconceptualization of the knowledge one already has. Organizational theorists insist that higher-quality problem solving depends on constructive conflict among group members. Cognitive psychologists propose that conceptual conflict may be necessary for insight and discovery. Educational psychologists indicate that conflict can increase achievement. Karl Marx believed that class conflict was necessary for social progress. From almost every social science, theorists have taken the position that conflict can have positive as well as negative outcomes.
Despite all the theorizing about the positive aspects of conflict, there has been until recently very little empirical evidence demonstrating that the presence of conflict can be more constructive than its absence. Guidelines for managing conflicts tend to be based more on folk wisdom than on validated theory. Far from being encouraged and structured in most interpersonal and intergroup situations, conflict tends to be avoided and suppressed. Creating conflict to capitalize on its potential positive outcomes tends to be the exception, not the rule. In the late 1960s, therefore, building on the previous work of Morton Deutsch and others, we began a program of theorizing and research to identify the conditions under which conflict results in constructive outcomes. One of the results of our work is the theory of constructive controversy.
This chapter provides an integration of theory, research, and practice on constructive controversy for individuals who wish to deepen their understanding of conflict and how to manage it constructively. The first part of the chapter provides the definitions and procedure and a theoretical framework that illuminates fundamental processes involved in creating and using conflict at the interpersonal, intergroup, organizational, and international levels. The second half of the chapter is aimed at helping readers use constructive controversy effectively in their applied situations.
WHAT IS CONSTRUCTIVE CONTROVERSY?
The best way ever devised for seeking the truth in any given situation is advocacy: presenting the pros and cons from different, informed points of view and digging down deep into the facts.
—Harold S. Geneen, Former CEO, ITT
Constructive controversy exists when one person’s ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another and the two seek to reach an agreement. Constructive controversies involve 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). Related to controversy is cognitive conflict, which occurs when incompatible ideas exist simultaneously in a person’s mind or when information being received does not seem to fit with what one already “knows” (Johnson and Johnson, 2007).
Structured constructive controversies are most commonly contrasted with concurrence seeking, debate, and individualistic learning. Concurrence seeking occurs when members of a group inhibit discussion to avoid any disagreement or arguments, emphasize agreement, and avoid realistic appraisal of alternative ideas and courses of action. Concurrence seeking is close to Janis’s (1982) concept of groupthink, when members of a decision-making group set aside their doubts and misgivings about whatever policy is favored by the emerging consensus so as to be able to concur with the other members. Debate exists when two or more individuals argue positions that are incompatible with one another and a judge declares a winner on the basis of who presented his or her position the best. An example of debate is when each member of a group is assigned a position as to whether more or fewer regulations are needed to control hazardous wastes and an authority declares as the winner the person who makes the best presentation of his or her position to the group. Individualistic efforts exist when individuals work alone without interacting with each other, in a situation in which their goals are unrelated and independent from each other (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 2008). The meta-analysis that follows compares these four forms of conflict. First, however, we review the theory of constructive controversy.
CONSTRUCTIVE CONTROVERSY THEORY
There is no more certain sign of a narrow mind, of stupidity, and of arrogance, than to stand aloof from those who think differently from us.
—Walter Savage Landor
Structure-process-outcome theory (Watson and Johnson, 1972) posits that the structure of the situation determines the process of interaction, and the process of interaction determines the outcomes (e.g., attitudes and behaviors of the individuals involved). The way in which a controversy is structured in learning and decision-making situations determines how group members interact with each other, which in turn determines the quality of the learning, decision making, creativity, and other relevant outcomes. Conflict among group members’ ideas, opinions, theories, and conclusions may be structured along a continuum (Johnson and Johnson, 2007) with constructive controversy at one end and concurrence seeking at the other (see table 4.1 and figure 4.1).
Table 4.1 Process of Controversy and Concurrence Seeking
Source: Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2007). Creative Controversy: Intellectual Challenge in the Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted by permission.
Controversy Concurrence Seeking
Organizing what is known into an initial conclusion Organizing what is known into an initial conclusion
Presenting, advocating, elaborating at least two positions and rationale Presenting, advocating, elaborating dominant position and rationale
Being challenged by opposing views, which results in conceptual conflict and uncertainty about the correctness of one’s own views Majority pressures dissenting group members to conform to majority position and perspective, creating a conflict between public compliance and private belief
Conceptual conflict, uncertainty, disequilibrium result Conflict between public and private position
Epistemic curiosity motivates active search for new information and perspectives Seeking confirming information that strengthens and supports the dominant position and perspective
Reconceptualization, synthesis, integration resulting in consensus consisting of best joint reasoned judgment reflecting all points of view Consensus on majority position—often false consensus due to members’ publicly agreeing while privately disagreeing
Figure 4.1 Theory of Controversy
Source: Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2007) Creative Controversy: Intellectual Challenge in the Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted by permission.
Structure of the Situation
The structure of the situation contains the role definitions and normative expectations that define appropriate and inappropriate ways for individuals to interact with each other in the situation, as well as other situational influences, such as the number of people involved, spatial arrangements, hierarchy of prestige, social sanctions, power, and the nature of activities to be conducted (Watson and Johnson, 1972). Changes in any or
all of these factors lead to changes in the processes of the system and the interactions of the members, which subsequently change the attitudes and behavior and the other outcomes of the individuals involved.
Structuring Constructive Controversy.
In constructive controversy, individuals research their position, present the best case they can for it, challenge the opposing positions, step back and see the issue from all sides, and then arrive at their best reasoned judgment. Constructive controversy is structured by
Establishing a cooperative context (i.e., structuring positive interdependence). Participants to come to an agreement (i.e., one answer) that reflects their best reasoned judgment as to solution to the problem, the best course of action to take to solve the problem, or an answer.
Establishing the constructive controversy procedure. Participants are required to (1) research and prepare a position; (2) present and advocate their position; (3) analyze, critically evaluate, and (often after further research) refute the opposing positions while rebutting criticisms of one’s own positions; (4) reverse perspectives to communicate that they can see the issue from all points of view; and (5) synthesize and integrate information into factual and judgmental conclusions that are summarized into a joint position to which all sides can agree (Johnson and Johnson, 2007). This is an advocacy-based-inquiry procedure. In engaging in this procedure, participants advocate a position and challenge opposing positions to gain increased understanding of the issue so that an agreement reflecting their best reasoned judgment can be made. here is a reliance on argumentative clash to develop, clarify, expand, and elaborate one’s thinking about the issues being considered. Advocacy and critically challenging the opposing positions are key elements in engaging in inquiry to discover the best course of action.