The events that trigger people like me (and perhaps Hugh) to have a negative
opinion of "brainstorming" are seemingly endless sessions forced upon us by
administrators who don't have a clue what needs done let alone how to get it
done. These sessions seem endless in length, endless in number, and seem to
create an endless stream of mindless propositions. The wasted hours of
human-power can be immense.
Before we divide ourselves into a brainstorming camp and an
anti-brainstorming camp we need to be clear what we mean by brainstorming.
(1) What I will call type (1) is the brainstorming we do with our science
colleagues and our science students. This brainstorming happens all the
time; most often impromptu; and some degree of filtering or triage takes
place both by the presenter and listener for each idea. I call this
"critical brainstorming."
It is not uncommon for absolutely ridiculous proposals to be presented as
comic relief and everyone gets a good laugh. It might even occur that after
the laughing is over someone says, "What a minute, there might be some merit
to that." This might be yet another joke, or it might be real. And the
people involved typically know the difference.
These sessions are usually short; sometimes in a hallway; sometimes over
lunch; sometimes while we're waiting for data to accumulate; often when
something just went wrong and we're sitting there wondering what it was that
went wrong.
I do brainstorm like this all the time. It is not only productive, it is
also fun. I live for it. If a day goes by and I haven't done this with
students or colleagues, it must have been a real boring or a real tedious
day.
Occasionally a meeting gets called so we can gather a particular group
rather then rely on a larger number of two-way or three-way discussions.
But these organized meetings are usually pretty short (an hour or less) and
they don't usually have any rules. I generally don't like organized
meetings, but I acknowledge they can be productive compared to some sort of
"shuttle brainstorming" where people bounce around having paired discussions
and person A learns about person B's idea from person C. At the same time,
I have seen "shuttle brainstorming" become very effective because the ideas
work around both consciously and subconsciously between the actual
encounters. Therefore I don't consider large meetings a necessity.
(2) What I will call type two is when an administrator forces us to attend a
"brainstorming session" that will last all morning, all afternoon, or both.
We are told that we are not allowed to say anything positive or negative
about any proposal offered... we only spew out ideas and someone write them
down.
I personally do not call this brainstorming. I believe brainstorming
implies an interaction of brains, both critical and supportive. Granted,
the hope is that what someone says might prompt my brain to carry it further
or in a new direction. But I personally do not find this happening. I get
angry. I get angry when I am not allowed to respond. I get angry when I am
forced to listen to ideas that strike me as so dumb that I would be
embarrassed if I uttered them, and I am supposed to treat them as serious
ideas. I got angry when the "boss" reprimanded me because he saw me roll my
eyes at what someone said. I got angry when the "boss" told me to get with
the program after she saw me start to doze off after 3 hours of listening to
crazy ideas.
I want type (1) brainstorming to happen every day. I would be happy if I
never experience type (2) brainstorming again.
Michael Edmiston
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Bluffton College, Bluffton, Ohio 45817