Home | Contact Us

Constructive Conflict

Uline, C. L., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Perez, L. (2003). 'Constructive conflict: How controversy can contribute to school improvement.' Teachers College Record, 105(5), 782-816. http://www.tcrecord.org

Uline, Tschannen-Moran and Perez (2003) conducted a year-long case study of a school engaged in significant reform in order to understand the nature of ongoing improvement efforts. Researchers spent one to two days of each week conducting interviews with staff, observing classes, shadowing teachers and students and attending meetings and presentations.

The authors write about the balance between creative tension and harmony, noting that eradication of disagreement was not a goal at the school. Four core tensions emerge.

Teacher autonomy versus preferred practices.
Discipline-based versus interdisciplinary instruction (process versus content, interactive versus facilitative methods, dominant versus subsumed subjects, generic assessments versus local content).
The parity and equity of work profiles.
Demands of change (time consuming, draining, frustrating).

The authors discuss two aspects of conflict: the 'cognitive' and the 'affective'. Cognitive conflict involves a conflict of ideas, strategies, procedures, policies, opinions and resources. Cognitive conflict can enhance problem solving and lead to improved decisions. Affective conflict concerns perceptions of threat to one's personal or group identity, norms and values and involves personality clashes, friction and frustration.

Although theoretically distinct, in the rough and tumble of actual conflict, the distinction between cognitive and affective conflict can become blurred. When the stakes are high, the issues are serious, and there is potential for great personal gain or loss, affective conflict can overwhelm the cognitive features of a disagreement. (p. 787)

Sometimes the feelings associated with conflict can be positive, such as the excitement and challenge of a lively debate. However, at the other extreme, feelings can interfere with the search for constructive solutions.

Uline et al. provide many examples of teachers' responses.

I know there is a part of [the principal] that respects me, but he wishes that I'd be quiet, because I make his life difficult. I went twenty-five years and never wrote a letter of protest to my administrator, and I've written probably thirty in the last two years. The last one was seven or eight pages. (p. 800)

The authors argue that maintaining an open level of conflict requires skill and an open, respectful attitude. They suggest:

having carefully structured forums as teachers develop new norms of practice
overcoming potential barriers to cooperation through attention to cultural norms, structural supports and organisational policies
encouraging parties to see controversy as a normal, necessary dynamic
establishing norms that acknowledge and value the open expression of diverse points of view
establishing contexts that accentuate participants' common interests and goals
creating greater interdependence
establishing formal policies that have an expectation of cooperative behaviour.

Structural supports at the research site included:

establishing administrative advisory groups and school improvement committees that encourage deeper ownership of school improvement efforts by teachers, foster leadership skills and create an organisational culture that values the differing perspectives of teachers
suspending surface consensus and risking discord to encourage broader-scale change
extending teachers' responsibilities beyond classrooms
establishing 'prime time' - everyday space for non-class-contact duties (eg meetings with students, parents, committees and critical friends) and collaborative projects
greater student responsibility for choosing and selecting classes
implementing policies that include embedded expectations of cooperation - such as the use of critical friends groups to overcome isolation and willingness to engage in critique in a supportive environment, and initiate new teachers; and team teaching.

Uline et al. outline a structured academic constructive controversy procedure (Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 1989, 1995, cited in Uline et al., 2003, p. 811), where participants take time to research a particular issue and prepare a persuasive case, refuting opposing positions and criticisms. Participants then argue the opposing position. The subsequent discussions result in a synthesis or integration of positions. Such a process is based upon cooperation, replaces initial uninformed perspectives with new learning, and requires cognitive rehearsal, conceptual conflict and reasoning.

Several simple strategies can aid constructive conflict, such as:

specifying who may and may not speak and for how long in order to allow full airing of participants' views without distraction
the routine designation of a 'devil's advocate'
the appointment of a mediator or ombudsman.

It is through controversy that individuals help each other cope with biases of closed-mindedness, simplistic thinking, inadequate evaluation of thinking, inadequate evaluation of information, and unwarranted commitment to a position. (Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 1991, p. 141, cited in Uline et al., 2003, p. 812)