Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching

Policy Futures in Education Volume 12 Number 3 2014 www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE

Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching Citizens how to Engage in Political Discourse DAVID W. JOHNSON & ROGER T. JOHNSON University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

ABSTRACT Positive political discourse is the heart of democracy. The purposes of political discourse include making an effective decision about the course the society should take and building a moral bond among all members of the society. A responsibility of social sciences within a democratic society is to provide the theory, research, and normative procedures needed to make political discourse constructive. A theory underlying political discourse is constructive controversy. There is considerable research that indicates controversy results in significant increases in the quality and creativity of decision making and problem solving, the quality of relationships among citizens, and improvements in the psychological health of the citizenry. From the validated theory, both a teaching and decision making procedure has been developed and field tested. The theory of constructive controversy, the supporting research, and the normative procedure provide a valid empirically based process for political discourse.

Introduction In a democratic society, each generation has to learn how to participate in the democratic process. To be good citizens, individuals need to learn how to engage in collective decision making about community and societal issues (Dalton, 2007). Collective decision making involves political discourse. While the word ‘discourse’ has been defined in many different ways by linguists and others (Foucault, 1970; Fairclough, 1995; Jaworski & Coupland, 1999), according to Webster’s Dictionary (Merrian-Webster, 2003), the concept ‘discourse’ has two major meanings: (a) formal communication of thoughts about a serious subject through words (spoken or written); and (b) rationality or the ability to reason. ‘Political discourse’ is the formal exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem. In political discourse there is an emphasis first on dissensus and conflict among positions (Ranciere, 1995/1999; Mouffe, 2000), and then, as the decision is made, consensus and agreement among advocates of the opposing and differing positions is sought. Mouffe (2000) especially emphasizes that there are emotional and non-rational aspects to holding and advocating positions and that true consensus may be rare. What may be more common is that a temporary decision is made by majority vote that leaves minority opinions unsatisfied. The holders of minority positions will support the majority out of respect and concern for the majority (and the majority will protect the rights of the holders of the minority positions out of the same respect and concern) until the next election occurs, and the underlying disagreements surface and are argued again. While the conflict among positions may never be fully resolved, it is the moral bond created by mutual commitment to the common good and the society’s values (e.g. equality, justice) that holds the society together. Given its combination of rational and irrational elements, two of the major purposes of political discourse are as follows. First, it is intended to involve all citizens in the making of the decision. Rule by the people means all the people. Citizen involvement is 417

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.3.417

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson characterized by presenting positions, attempting to persuade others (through valid information and logic), listening to others, gathering new information and subsequently adjusting positions, clarifying what course of action would be most effective in solving the societal problem, and voting for the candidates who will implement that course of action. Second, political discourse is intended to build a moral bond among all citizens of the society. Not only the current generation, but also each successful generation has to be taught the procedures, competencies, attitudes, and values needed to engage in positive political discourse. The success of the democracy depends upon the effectiveness of this socialization process, which in turn depends on its being based on a social science theory, validated by research, from which a clear procedure for political discourse may be derived. This article, therefore, focuses on three questions: 1. What is the nature of positive and negative political discourse? Citizens need to understand what political discourse is and the difference between positive and negative political discourse. They also need to become skilled in the use of the procedure for engaging in positive political discourse. 2. What is the theory and validating research on constructive controversy that underlies the political discourse process? A basic social science theory is needed that organizes what is known about positive political discourse and leads to a program of research aimed at improving our understanding of political discourse and the conditions under which it is constructive. The theory is known as constructive controversy. 3. What is the normative procedure that may be used to teach citizens how to engage in positive political discourse? A normative procedure, extrapolated from a validated theory (i.e. constructive controversy), needs to be used to socialize children, adolescents, and young adults into the competencies and attitudes needed to engage in positive political discourse. Using the procedure in instructional and decision making situations would teach each successive generation the steps needed to engage in constructive political discourse, as well as an understanding of positive political discourse. Using constructive controversy in schools may be one of the most effective ways of teaching new generations how to engage in positive political discourse and be effective citizens in a democracy. Constructive controversy has been used in Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and the United States of America (USA) by secondary school teachers as part of the ‘Deliberating in a Democracy Project’ to teach students how to be citizens in a democracy (Avery et al, 2006). A related procedure, cooperative learning, has been used to teach elementary and secondary students in Armenia how to be citizens in a democracy (Hovhannisyan et al, 2005). Thus, in both mature and developing democracies, constructive controversy has been used to socialize citizens into the understandings, attitudes, and competencies they need to participate effectively in political discourse. Decision Making Political discourse is a method of decision making in a democracy. A decision implies that some agreement prevails as to which of several courses of action is most desirable for achieving a goal (Johnson & Johnson, 2012). Effective democratic decisions tend to be of high quality, reflecting the best reasoned judgment of the citizens. The process of making the decision at its best increases the commitment of all citizens to: (a) implement the decision (whether they agree with it or not), and (b) the democratic process. The process also increases the cohesiveness of the society. The process ensures that the rights of the political minority (those who disagree with the decision) should be protected until the issue is reopened in the next election. Finally, the decision-making capabilities of the democracy are enhanced, or at least not lessened. In the USA, Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of the American Republic considered conflict among positions and the resulting political discourse to be the heart of democracy. They believed that instead of the social rank within which a person was born determining one’s influence (i.e. the higher your social rank, the more influence you had on social policy and decision making), the basis of influence within society should be discourse in a free and open discussion characterized by conflict among ideas and opinions (i.e. whoever had the most compelling arguments supported by accurate information and logic has the most influence on social policy and decision making). 418

Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching Jefferson (1815) noted inquiry resulted from differences of opinion, and then reveals the truth. James Madison (Farrand, 1966), described political discourse as (a) including open-minded consideration of other points of view and (b) keeping conclusions tentative by realizing that one’s current knowledge is not the whole truth. The views of political discourse of Jefferson, Madison, and their contemporaries were grounded in the philosophy and thought of the 1700s. The philosopher Edmund Burke (1790/2006), for example, recommended conflict among ideas by stating that our skills are sharpened, and our nerves are strengthened, by those who wrestle with us (not by those who give in to our will). Development of a Moral Bond among Citizens Among the most important effects of political discourse is its impact on the cohesiveness of the society and the moral bonds among citizens. In 1748, Baron Charles de Montesquieu published The Spirit of Laws (1798/2010) in which he explored the relationship between people and different forms of government. He concluded that while dictatorship survives by the fear of the people, and monarchy survives by the loyalty of the people, a free republic (the most fragile of the three political systems) survives on the virtue of the people. Virtue is reflected in the way a person balances his or her own needs with the needs of the society as a whole. Motivation to be virtuous comes from ‘a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, a moral bond with the community whose life is at stake’. This moral bond is cultivated by ‘deliberating with fellow citizens about the common good and helping shape the destiny of the political community’ (Book 2, chapter 2, pp. 1, 2). Establishing such a moral bond (to act in the service of the common good and shape the destiny of their society) requires (a) citizen participation in their own governance and (b) a common set of values. Participation involves both actively engaging in political discourse and seeking out and valuing the participation of all other citizens, especially when their views conflict with one’s own. In the USA, the values underlying such participation were primarily spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (e.g. equality, liberty, justice). De Tocqueville (1945), in the mid-nineteenth century, concluded that of the principal factors maintaining democracy in the USA (situation and context, law, and manners and customs of the people), the most important was the general principles about citizenship that Americans held in common. He called these manners and customs ‘habits of the heart’ and defined them as including taking responsibility for the common good, trusting others to do the same, being honest, having self-discipline, and reciprocating good deeds. Much later, a panel of distinguished political theorists in the 1950s concluded that for democracy to exist, citizens must (a) be committed to fundamental values such as liberty and equality and (b) be in consensus on the procedural norms by which substantive decisions are made (Griffith et al, 1956). Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the other founders of the American Republic assumed that political discourse would be positive. In actual practice, however, instead of resulting in a consensual decision and building a common moral bond, political discourse can result in divisiveness and dislike. Negative Political Persuasion There are dangers when political discussion becomes destructive rather than illuminating. Destructive political persuasion exists when misleading, superficial, or irrelevant information is presented in ways that decreases citizens’ understanding of the issue, results in an absence of thoughtful consideration of the issue, divides citizens into warring camps who dislike each other, and decreases citizen participation in the political process. Discourse may be replaced by other means of persuasion, such as using deceit through misinformation, de-emphasizing and ignoring important issues, positioning, pandering to voters, and argumentum ad hominem which consists of directing arguments at the opponent rather than at his or her ideas and proposals (Johnson & Johnson, 2007). Ad hominem arguments can involve questioning the motives of the opponent, accusing the opponent of acting on personal interest, accusing the opponent of inconsistency, or accusing the opponent of past misconduct. In essence, ad hominem arguments communicate that 419

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson the opponent is ‘bad’, and therefore must be wrong. By focusing attention on the candidates rather than the issues, such persuasive procedures may be markedly unhelpful in clarifying which course of action should be adopted. In addition, ad hominem arguments weaken the moral bond underlying the democratic process, discourage others from presenting opposing positions, undermine trust in the political system and each other, and undermine the overall positive interdependence that holds society together. Negative persuasive tactics may discredit political discourse and disillusion citizens about the political process. Political discourse may then be ignored or rejected. The power of the personal attack rather than discourse in campaigning is illustrated by the negativity effect. The negativity effect exists when a negative trait affects an impression more than a positive trait, everything else being equal (Vonk, 1993). There is evidence that individuals tend to pay special attention to negative information (Fiske, 1980; Pratto & John, 1991) and weigh negative information more heavily than positive information (Coovert & Reeder, 1990; Taylor, 1991), especially in regard to moral traits. In a wide variety of studies, ranging from forming impressions about other people to evaluating positive and negative information to reach a decision or judgment, negative information figured more prominently than positive information (Taylor, 1991). Capitalizing on the power of negativity, however, may be inherently dangerous to the health of a democracy. Adlai Stevenson (1952), for example, noted that it is the American ‘tradition of critical inquiry and discussion that informs our entire civilization’, but critical inquiry only advances the general welfare when its purpose is honest. He notes that ‘criticism, not as an instrument of inquiry and reform, but as an instrument of power, quickly degenerates into the techniques of deceit and smear’. What Stevenson and others point out is that when negative personal attacks are used as an instrument of power, they tend to: (a) increase intolerance aimed at the other person and the views he or she represents (which is directly opposite to the values of democracy which emphasize tolerance of others even if they are promoting unpopular views), (b) undermine trust and other influences on political participation, and (c) undermine the overall positive interdependence and moral bonds that hold society together. The more widespread the use of negative personal attacks, the greater tends to be the disillusionment of citizens about the political process. Disillusionment may result in decreased participation, as well as resentment and a refusal to help implement the will of the winners. Procedure for Positive Political Discourse The constructive engagement in positive political discourse is dependent on having an effective normative procedure. Positive political discourse may be seen as a six step procedure (Johnson & Johnson, 2007). First, citizens need the freedom and opportunity to propose courses of action that they believe will solve the problem under consideration. In the USA such freedom of information and speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution or more universally by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Free expression of one’s views inherently involves conflict among ideas (i.e. controversy) as not everyone will have the same view of any issue. Second, individual or small groups of citizens initially decide on what course of action is needed to solve a societal problem. They come to an initial conclusion. They organize what they know into a coherent and reasoned position. They research their position and prepare persuasive presentations to convince others of their position’s validity. They plan how to advocate their position so that all citizens understand it thoroughly, give it a fair and complete hearing, and are convinced of its soundness. Third, citizens present the best case possible for their position and listen carefully to the opposing presentations. Their advocacy takes place within the cooperative framework of making the best decision possible (i.e. goal interdependence) and believing that a high-quality decision cannot be made without considering the information organized by advocates of opposing positions (i.e. resource interdependence). They strive to gain insights into opposing positions’ strengths and weaknesses by learning the information provided in the opposing presentations and understanding the reasoning underlying the opposing positions. 420

Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching Fourth, citizens engage in an open discussion characterized by advocacy, refutation, and rebuttal. The advocacy groups give opposing positions a ‘trial by fire’ by attempting to refute them by challenging the validity of their information and logic. They probe and push each other’s conclusions. They rebut attacks on their own position while continuing to attempt to persuade other citizens of its validity. Citizens continue to attempt to learn thoroughly the opposing positions to gain insights into their weaknesses and flaws. An important skill in doing so is ‘confirming the other person’s competence while criticizing their ideas’ (Johnson & Johnson, 2007). The goal of persuading others to agree with one’s position is never forgotten. Fifth, citizens strive to see the issue from all perspectives simultaneously and demonstrate their understanding by summarizing accurately and completely the opposing positions. This ensures that the advocates of the opposing positions believe they have been heard and understood. Citizens are expected to be able to step back and objectively view the issue from all sides. This prevents advocacy leading to selective perception and bias in viewing the issue. Finally, citizens strive to create a synthesis that subsumes the various positions being advocated, or at the very least integrates the best information and reasoning from all points of view. A vote is taken in which the majority rules. The political minority helps implement the decision because they know: (a) they had a fair chance to influence others’ opinions, (b) they will have another chance to advocate their position in a set number of years, and (c) their rights will be protected in the meantime. Protection of rights of minority opinion groups is critical for positive political discourse to occur. This procedure does not automatically appear when decisions need to be made. It must be learned and perfected. The most logical place to teach such a procedure is within schools as citizens are developing and growing up. Need for Citizen Socialization In a democracy, each generation has to be socialized into the procedures, competencies, attitudes, and values needed to engage in positive political discourse. The health of the democracy depends upon the effectiveness of this socialization process. In order to do so, there are two things that are essential. The first is a basic social science theory that organizes what is known about positive political discourse and leads to a program of research aimed at improving our understanding of political discourse and the conditions under which it is constructive. The research validates the theory. The second is a procedure for socializing children and young adults into the nature of positive discourse. A normative procedure for this socialization has been extrapolated from the theory (validated by research) so that: (a) citizens know the steps needed to engage in constructive political discourse, and (b) the procedure may be used to teach each successive generation how to engage in positive political discourse and thereby participate in the political process. Both the social science theory and the practical procedure for this particular citizen socialization are known as constructive controversy. Constructive Controversy A purpose of political discourse is to create consensus among citizens as to which course of action will best advance the long-term well-being of the country. In presenting a position, individuals should prepare well-reasoned and thoughtful positions characterized by valid information and sound logic. As different individuals present different positions and views, a conflict occurs. The conflict is characterized by dissent and arguing (Johnson & Johnson, 2007). ‘Dissent’ may be defined as differing in opinion or conclusion, especially from the majority. Dissent often results in an argument. An argument is a thesis statement or claim supported by at least one reason, and arguing is a social process in which two or more individuals engage in a dialogue where arguments are constructed, presented, and critiqued. Arguing is often called dialectical argumentation because a thesis and supporting reasons may be contradicted by an antithesis and its supporting reasons. A distinction may also been made between collaborative argumentation (the goal to work cooperatively to explore and critique different ideas, positions, and conclusions) and adversarial

421

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson argumentation (the goal is to ‘win’ an argument as in a debate) (Gilbert, 1997; Brown & Renshaw, 2000). When different individuals have different views and conclusions concerning the course of action a society should take to solve its problems, the resulting conflict is known as a controversy. 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 (Johnson et al, 1976; Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 1989, 2003, 2007, 2009). Constructive controversy involves 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). Constructive controversy, as well as positive political discourse, is a form of inquiry-based advocacy. Advocacy is the presenting of a position and providing reasons why others should adopt it. Inquiry is investigating an issue to establish the best answer or course of action; it involves asking questions and seeking to learn the necessary facts to answer the questions. Inquiry usually begins with a focal point, something that captures the participants’ attention, holds it, and motivates them to investigate. Disinterested people do not inquire. The presentations create the focal point of the inquiry. Inquiry-based advocacy, therefore, is two or more parties presenting opposing positions in order to investigate an issue and establish the underlying facts and logic needed to reach a reasoned judgment about a course of action. The opposite of constructive controversy is concurrence seeking. Concurrence seeking occurs when members of a group inhibit discussion to avoid any disagreement or argument and emphasize agreement. Concurrence seeking is close to Janis’ (1982) concept of ‘groupthink’ (i.e. 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 and thereby preserve the harmonious atmosphere of the group). Thus, constructive controversy may be managed in two ways – through inquiry-based advocacy and argumentation (i.e. constructive controversy) or through seeking quick agreement with little or no disagreement (i.e. concurrence seeking) (see Figure 1). Theory of Constructive Controversy 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, cited in Forster, 1846)

The basic premise of constructive controversy theory is that the way in which conflict among conclusions is structured determines how individuals interact with each other, which in turn determines the conflict’s outcomes. Based on Lewin’s (1935) field theory, Structure–Process– Outcome Theory posits that the structure of the situation determines the processes of interpersonal interaction, which determines outcomes (Watson & Johnson, 1972). The structure of the situation contains the role definitions and normative expectations that define what are 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. Changes in any or all of these factors lead to changes in the interactions of the group members, which subsequently changes the outcomes of the individuals involved. In terms of political discourse, the way in which disagreement among positions is structured determines the process of interaction among individuals, which determines the nature and quality of the outcomes, such as the people elected to office and the policies adopted. Conflict among group members as to which course of action is to be adopted may be structured along a continuum. At one end of the continuum, disagreement may be structured as a constructive controversy to encourage and promote argumentation, or at the other end conflict may be covered-up and suppress differences in opinion and conclusions so that all group members conform or concur with the majority view (i.e. concurrence seeking). These two structures promote different processes of interaction among individuals, which in turn promote different outcomes.

422

Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching

Figure 1. Theory of controversy. Source: Johnson & Johnson, 2007, reprinted by permission.

Processes of Interaction: constructive controversy vs. concurrence seeking The process through which constructive controversy creates positive outcomes involves the following theoretical assumptions (Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 1989, 2007, 2009) (see Table I and Figure 1): 1. When individuals are presented with a problem or decision, they have an initial conclusion based on categorizing and organizing incomplete information, their limited experiences, and their specific perspective. They have a high degree of confidence in their conclusions (i.e. they freeze the epistemic process). 2. When individuals present their conclusion and its rationale to others, they engage in cognitive rehearsal, deepen their understanding of their position, and use higher-level reasoning strategies. The more they attempt to persuade others to agree with them, the more committed they may become to their position. 3. When individuals are confronted with different conclusions based on other people’s information, experiences, and perspectives, they become uncertain as to the correctness of their views and a state of conceptual conflict or disequilibrium is aroused. They unfreeze their epistemic process. 4. Uncertainty, conceptual conflict, or disequilibrium motivates epistemic curiosity, an active search for: (a) more information and new experiences (increased specific content), and (b) a more adequate cognitive perspective and reasoning process (increased validity) in hopes of resolving the uncertainty. 5. By adapting their cognitive perspective and reasoning through understanding and accommodating new information as well as the perspective and reasoning of others, 423

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson individuals derive a new, reconceptualized, and reorganized conclusion. Novel solutions and decisions that, on balance, are qualitatively better are detected. The positive feelings and commitment individuals feel in creating a solution to the problem together is extended to each other and interpersonal attraction increases. A bond is built among the participants. Their competencies in managing conflicts constructively tend to improve. The process may begin again at this point or it may be terminated by freezing the current conclusion and resolving any dissonance by increasing confidence in the validity of the conclusion. In concurrence seeking, individuals present their position and its rationale (see Figure 1). The dominant, most initiated favored position is determined through being presented and uncritically adopted by the majority of the members. Dissenters are pressured by the majority of members to concur and conform to the majority opinion, and, if the dissenters do not conform, they are viewed as non-team players who obstruct team effectiveness (Collins & Porras, 1994). Dissenters are given a choice, concur with the majority opinion or face ridicule, rejection, ostracism, and being disliked (Freese & Fay, 2001; Nemeth & Goncalo, 2011). If they concur, they experience a conflict between their private and public positions. As a result, they often seek out confirming information to strengthen the majority position and view the issue only from the majority’s perspective (thus eliminating the possible consideration of divergent points of view). Thus, there is a convergence of thought and a narrowing of focus in members’ thinking. A false consensus results, with all members agreeing about the course of action the group is to take, while privately some members may believe that other courses of action would be more effective. Outcomes: research results The relevance of constructive controversy for political discourse may be seen in Table I. Almost all of this research has been conducted in North America. The first purpose of political discourse is to promote high-quality decision making reflecting the best reasoned judgment of the country’s citizens. Compared with concurrence seeking (effect size [ES] = 0.68), debate (ES = 0.40), and individualistic efforts (ES = 0.87), constructive controversy tends to result in higher-quality decisions (including decisions that involve ethical dilemmas) and higher-quality solutions to complex problems for which different viewpoints can plausibly be developed (Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 1989, 2009). Controversy tends to promote more frequent use of higher-level reasoning strategies than do concurrence seeking (ES = 0.62), debate (ES = 1.35), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.90). Constructive controversy tends to promote more accurate and complete understanding of opposing perspectives than do concurrence seeking (ES = 0.91), debate (ES = 0.22), and individualistic efforts (ES = 0.86). Thus, constructive controversy tends to result in high-quality decisions characterized by higher-level reasoning, understanding of all relevant perspectives, creative thinking, openness to influence, and continuing motivation to learn more about the issue. A second purpose of political discourse is to increase citizens’ commitment to implement the decision (even if they do not agree with it) and participate in future decision making. Individuals who engaged in constructive controversies tended to like the decision making task better than did individuals who engaged in concurrence-seeking discussions (ES = 0.58). Participating in a controversy tends to result in participants re-evaluating their attitudes about the issue, incorporating opponent’s arguments into their own attitudes, changing their attitudes, maintaining their new attitudes over time, and generally having more positive attitudes toward the experience, the decision made, and the controversy procedure (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). A third purpose of political discourse is to improve the cohesiveness of the democracy and the moral bond among citizens. Constructive controversy tends to promote greater liking among participants than debate (ES = 0.72), concurrence seeking (ES = 0.24), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.81). Constructive controversy also tends to promote greater social support among participants than does debate (ES = 0.92), concurrence seeking (ES = 0.32), or individualistic efforts (ES = 1.52). Constructive controversy creates positive attitudes toward the advocates of opposing positions (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Advocates of opposing positions, in other words, are viewed positively as sources of new information and perspectives that enhance one’s own understanding and judgments. They are not viewed as enemies. Engaging in the controversy procedure brings people together, even though they have different positions. 424

Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching Dependent variable Quality Of Decision Making Controversy / Concurrence Seeking Controversy / Debate Controversy / Individualistic Efforts Cognitive Reasoning Controversy / Concurrence Seeking Controversy / Debate Controversy / Individualistic Efforts Perspective-Taking Controversy / Concurrence Seeking Controversy / Debate Controversy / Individualistic Efforts Motivation Controversy / Concurrence Seeking Controversy / Debate Controversy / Individualistic Efforts Attitudes Controversy / Concurrence Seeking Controversy / Debate Controversy / Individualistic Efforts Interpersonal Attraction Controversy / Concurrence Seeking Controversy / Debate Controversy / Individualistic Efforts Debate / Individualistic Efforts Social Support Controversy / Concurrence Seeking Controversy / Debate Controversy / Individualistic Efforts Debate / Individualistic Efforts Self-Esteem Controversy / Concurrence Seeking Controversy / Debate Controversy / Individualistic Efforts Debate / Individualistic Efforts

Mean

SD

n

0.68 0.40 0.87

0.41 0.43 0.47

15 6 19

0.62 1.35 0.90

0.44 0.00 0.48

2 1 15

0.91 0.22 0.86

0.28 0.42 0.00

9 2 1

0.75 0.45 0.71

0.46 0.44 0.21

12 5 4

0.58 0.81 0.64

0.29 0.00 0.00

5 1 1

0.24 0.72 0.81 0.46

0.44 0.25 0.11 0.13

8 6 3 2

0.32 0.92 1.52 0.85

0.44 0.42 0.29 0.01

8 6 3 2

0.39 0.51 0.85 0.45

0.15 0.09 0.04 0.17

4 2 3 2

Note: For a more complete analysis, see Johnson & Johnson (2007). Reprinted by permission. Table I. Meta-analysis of controversy studies: average effect size.

Fourth, engaging in political discourse should increase the ability of citizens to do so even more skillfully in the future. Participation in a constructive controversy increases participants’ experience and skills in doing so. Constructive controversy tends to promote higher self-esteem than does concurrence seeking (ES = 0.39), debate (ES = 0.51), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.85). In addition, it promotes positive attitudes toward the procedure and the advocates of opposing positions, thereby increasing participants’ willingness to engage in the political discourse procedure in the future. Fifth, political discourse is based on the premise that the rights of the political minority (those whose position is not adopted) will be protected until the decision is reopened. Constructive controversy, by promoting positive attitudes toward procedure, the advocates of opposing positions, and oneself, create the atmosphere in which protection of minority rights is valued and protected. The health of democracies may be increased when participating in political discourse increases the quality of the decision, their commitment to implement the decision, the cohesiveness of the society and the moral bond among citizens, and the positiveness of citizens’ attitudes toward the controversy procedure, the decision made, and themselves. Constructive controversy, therefore, provides a theory validated by research, as well as a clear normative procedure on which political discourse may be implemented. 425

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson Conditions Determining the Constructiveness of Controversy Although controversies can operate in a beneficial way, they will not do so under all conditions. Whether controversy results in positive or negative consequences depends on the conditions under which it occurs and the way in which it is managed. These conditions include the context within which the controversy takes place and the level of participants’ social skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 1989, 2007, 2009). Cooperative Goal Structure There are two possible contexts for controversy: cooperative and competitive (Deutsch, 1973; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Positive political discourse is a cooperative endeavor, aimed at providing the best reasoned judgment possible to solve a societal problem. Negative political discourse is a competitive endeavor, aimed at winning over the opposing side. Cooperation provides a more supportive climate for disclosing and exploring differences than competition (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). In addition, there is considerable evidence that within a cooperative (as opposed to a competitive) context, constructive controversy is characterized by more complete and accurate communication, more accurate understanding of the opponent’s position, greater utilization of others’ information, greater understanding of what others are feeling and why they are feeling that way, feelings of comfort, pleasure, and helpfulness in discussing opposing positions, more open-minded listening to the opposing positions, greater motivation to hear more about the opponent’s arguments, more frequently seeking out individuals with opposing opinions to test the validity of their ideas, greater trust, and the reaching of more integrated positions where both one’s own and one’s opponent’s conclusions and reasoning are synthesized into a final position (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Skilled Disagreement For controversies to be managed constructively, participants need cooperative and conflictmanagement skills (Johnson & Johnson, 2012; Johnson, 2013). One skill is disagreeing with each other’s ideas while confirming each other’s personal competence. The use of this skill results in being better liked and in the opponents being less critical of one’s ideas, more interested in learning more about one’s ideas, and more willing to incorporate one’s information and reasoning into their own analysis of the problem. The second skill is perspective-taking (Johnson, 1971, 2013; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). In positive political discourse participants need to be able to see the issue from all perspectives. In negative political discourse, only one’s own perspective is seen as important. A series of studies has demonstrated that individuals engaged in a controversy were more accurate in understanding their opponents’ perspective than were persons involved in concurrence-seeking discussions or individualistic efforts. The greater the clarity of group members’ understanding of all sides of the issues and the more accurate the assessment of their validity and relative merits, the more creative the synthesis of all positions in a controversy tends to be. Finally, perspective taking promotes more positive perceptions of advocates of opposing positions (Johnson, 1971). Practical Procedures for Constructive Controversy The constructive use of political discourse is dependent on having a normative procedure that is truly effective. Constructive controversy provides such a procedure that is grounded in theory validated by research. Two interrelated settings for which procedures have been developed are education (Johnson & Johnson, 2007) and any decision-making situation (Johnson & Johnson, 2012). The most attention has been in using constructive controversy in elementary and secondary schools and in universities to promote academic learning, while at the same time socializing children, adolescents, and young adults into the competencies needed to be citizens in a democracy. Generally, students need to be educated for a ‘culture of argument’ (Walzer, 2004, p. 107). Since constructive controversy is a process, it may be used in almost any subject area, any age student, and any topic being studied. In doing so, the instructor organizes students into 426

Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching cooperative learning groups of four, divides each group into two pairs, assigns the pro position on an issue to one pair and the con position to the other pair, and then guides the students through the following steps (Johnson & Johnson, 2007): 1. Research and Prepare a Position: Each pair develops the position assigned, learns the relevant information, and plans how to present the best case possible to the other pair. This involves both cognitive generation and cognitive validation. Pairs are encouraged to compare notes with pairs from other groups who represent the same position. 2. Present and Advocate Their Position: Each pair makes their presentation to the opposing pair. Each member of the pair has to participate in the presentation. Students are to be as persuasive and convincing as possible. Members of the opposing pair are encouraged to take notes, listen carefully to learn the information being presented, and clarify anything they do not understand. 3. Engage in an Open Discussion in which They Refute the Opposing Position and Rebut Attacks on Their Own Position: Students argue forcefully and persuasively for their position, presenting as many facts as they can (arranged in a logical order) to support their point of view. The group members analyze and critically evaluate the information, rationale, and inductive and deductive reasoning of the opposing pair, asking them for the facts that support their point of view. While refuting the arguments of the opposing pair, students rebut attacks on their position. Students keep in mind that the issue is complex and they need to know both sides to write a good report. 4. Reverse Perspectives: The pairs reverse perspectives and present each other’s positions. In arguing for the opposing position, students are forceful and persuasive. They add any new information that the opposing pair did not think to present. They strive to see the issue from both perspectives simultaneously. 5. Synthesize and Integrate the Best Evidence and Reasoning into a Joint Position: The four members of the group drop all advocacy and synthesize and integrate what they know into factual and judgmental conclusions that are summarized in a joint position to which all sides can agree. They: (a) finalize the report, (b) present their conclusions to the class, (c) individually take the test covering both sides of the issue, and (d) process how well they worked together. Summary This article focused on three questions. The first was, ‘What is the nature of positive and negative political discourse?’ The purpose of political discourse is to involve all citizens in deciding which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem. Participation involves persuading others through valid information and logic and clarifying which course of action would be most effective. This involves inquiry-based advocacy. As Thomas Jefferson (1815) noted, differences of opinion (when managed constructively) results in inquiry, and from that inquiry the truth (i.e. best reasoned judgment) is revealed. The health of the democracy depends upon the effectiveness with which each successive generation is socialized into the procedures, competencies, attitudes, and values needed to engage in positive political discourse. Political discourse may be positive or negative. In positive political discourse, the quality of the decision is determined by the decision’s impact on the long-term common good of all members of the society, and the reflection of a common set of values, such as equality and justice for all members of society. Disagreement is valued as it is seen as helping to reveal the ‘truth’ as to which course of action will be most effective. In negative political discourse, the lack of quality is reflected in short-term wins by some citizens at the expense of the common good. There are dangers when political discourse becomes destructive. Negative persuasive tactics such as personal attacks do not inform citizens, does not spur inquiry, and may discredit political discourse and disillusion citizens about the political process. More generally, it leads to intolerance of others, distrust, and a weakening of the moral bonds that hold society together. The second question was, ‘What is the theory and validating research on constructive controversy that underlies the political discourse process?’. In order to ensure that political discourse is positive, there is a need for a guiding theory that has been validated by research and 427

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson from which practical procedures may be operationalized. Constructive controversy exists when individuals’ ideas, opinions, theories, and conclusions are incompatible and they seek to agree. Constructive controversy theory posits that conflict among ideas, theories, or conclusions leads to uncertainty about the correctness of their views, which leads to epistemic curiosity and the active search for additional information and perspectives, which leads to reconceptualized and refined conclusions. A cooperative context is a prerequisite to constructive controversy. Furthermore, individuals must have (or develop) skills in challenging each other’s positions, must follow the canons of rational argument, and be actively involved. The results of the research indicate that controversy, compared to concurrence seeking, debate, and individualistic learning, tends to result in greater achievement and retention, cognitive and moral reasoning, perspective-taking, openmindedness, creativity, task involvement, continuing motivation, attitude change, interpersonal attraction, and self-esteem. The results of the research indicate that positive political discourse can have broad effects on a wide variety of variables. The third question was, ‘What is the normative procedure that may be used to teach citizens how to engage in positive political discourse?’. The operational procedure involves assigning students to groups of four and dividing it into two pairs and assigning them opposing positions. The pairs then: (a) prepare the best case possible for their position, (b) present it to the other pair and listen to the opposing position, (c) engage in a discussion in which they attempt to refute the other side and rebut attacks on their position, (d) reverse perspectives and present the best case for the other position, and (e) drop all advocacy and seek a synthesis that takes both perspectives and positions into account and that all four members can agree upon. This procedure, which is being used in many different countries and educational settings, is simultaneously a means of increasing academic achievement, while socializing students into the understanding, attitudes, and competencies they need to engage in positive political discourse, and thereby be productive citizens in a democracy. References Avery, P., Freeman, C., Greenwalt, K. & Trout, M. (2006) The ‘deliberating in a democracy project’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 7-11, in San Francisco, CA, USA. Brown, R.A.J. & Renshaw, O.D. (2000) Collective Argumentation: a sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning, in H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds) Social Interaction in Learning and Instruction: the meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge, pp. 52-66. New York: Elsevier. Burke, E. (1790/2006) Reflections on the Revolution in France, p. 144. New York: Pearson Longman. Collins, J.C. & Porras, J.I. (1994) Built to Last: successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Collins. Coovert, M. & Reeder, G. (1990) Negativity Effects in Impression Formation: the role of unit formation and schematic expectations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 49-62. Dalton, R. (2007) The Good Citizen: how a younger generation is reshaping American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press. De Montesquieu, C. (1748/2010) The Spirit of Laws, trans. Thomas Nugent. Digireads.com De Tocqueville, A. (1945) Democracy in America, vol. 1, pp. 298-342. New York: Random House. Deutsch, M. (1973) The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fairclough, M. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. Farrand, M. (Ed.) (1966) Jared Sparks Journal, Record of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 3, p. 479. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Fiske, S. (1980) Attention and Weight in Person Perception: the impact of negative and extreme behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889 Forster, J. (1846) The Works and Life of Walter Savage Landor, 8 vols. New York: Ulan Press. Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things. New York: Pantheon. Freese, M. & Fay, D. (2001) Personal Initiative (PI): an active performance concept for work in the 21st century, Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01913085(01)23005-6 Gilbert, M. (1997) Coalescent Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

428

Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching Griffith, E., Plamenatz, J. & Pennock, J. (1956) Cultural Prerequisites to a Successfully Functioning Democracy: a symposium, American Political Science Review, 50, 101-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1951601 Hovhannisyan, A., Varrella, G., Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (2005) Cooperative Learning and Building Democracies, Cooperative Link, 20(1), 1-3. Janis, I. (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (Eds) (1999) The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge. Jefferson, T. (1815) Letter to P.H. Wendover. March 13. Johnson, D.W. (1971) Role-reversal: a summary and review of the research, International Journal of Group Tensions, 1, 318-334. Johnson, D.W. (2013) Reaching out: interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization. 11th edn. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, F. & Johnson, R. (1976) Promoting Constructive Conflict in the Classroom, Notre Dame Journal of Education, 7, 163-168. Johnson D.W. & Johnson, F. (2012) Joining Together: group theory and group skills. 11th edn. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (1979) Conflict in the Classroom: constructive controversy and learning, Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543049001051 Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (1989) Cooperation and Competition: theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (1991) Cooperative Learning and Classroom and School Climate, in B. Fraser & H. Walberg (Eds) Educational Environments: evaluation, antecedents and consequences, pp. 55-74. New York: Pergamon. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (2003) Controversy and Peace Education, Journal of Research in Education, 13(1), 71-91. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2007) Creative Controversy: intellectual challenge in the classroom. 4th edn. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2009) Energizing Learning: the instructional power of conflict, Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08330540 Lewin, K. (1935) A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Merrian-Webster (2003) The Merriam-Webster Dictioinary. New York: Merriam-Webster. Mouffe, C. (2000) Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism, Political Science Series, 72, 1-17. Nemeth, C.J. & Goncalo, J.A. (2011) Rogues and Heroes: finding value in dissent, in J. Jetten & M. Hornsey (Eds) Rebels in Groups: dissent, deviance, difference, and defiance. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Pratto, F. & John, O. (1991) Automatic Vigilance: the attention-grabbing power of negative social information, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.61.3.380 Ranciere, J. (1995/1999) Disagreement: politics and philosophy, trans. J. Rose. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Stevenson, A.E. (1952) Major Campaign Speeches of Adlai E. Stevenson. New York: Random House. Taylor, S. (1991) Asymmetrical Effects of Positive and Negative Events: the mobilization–minimization hypothesis, Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67 Vonk, R. (1993) The Negativity Effect in Trait Ratings and in Open-ended Descriptions of Persons, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 269-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293193003 Walzer, M. (2004) Politics and Passion: toward a more egalitarian liberalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Watson, G. & Johnson, D.W. (1972) Social Psychology: issues and insights. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

DAVID W. JOHNSON is an Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota. He is Co-Director of the Cooperative Learning Center. He received his doctoral degree from Columbia University. He has authored over 500 research articles and book chapters. He is the author of over 50 books. He is a past-editor of the American Educational Research Journal. He held the 429

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson Emma M. Birkmaier Professorship in Educational Leadership at the University of Minnesota from 1994 to 1997 and the Libra Endowed Chair for Visiting Professor at the University of Maine in 1996-1997. He has received numerous professional awards from the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association, the International Association of Conflict Management, and other professional organizations. Correspondence: [email protected] ROGER T. JOHNSON is a Professor of Education at the University of Minnesota and is CoDirector of the Cooperative Learning Center. He holds his doctoral degree from the University of California in Berkeley. In 1965 Dr Johnson received an award for outstanding teaching from the Jefferson County Schools, and has since been honored with several national awards. He taught in the Harvard-Newton Intern Program as a Master Teacher. He was a curriculum developer with the Elementary Science Study in the Educational Development Center at Harvard University. For three summers he taught classes in British primary schools at the University of Sussex near Brighton, UK. He has consulted with schools throughout the world. Dr Johnson is the author of numerous research articles, book chapters, and books. Correspondence: [email protected]

430