Evaluational Brainstorming

Claudio Bezzi

.

DOI: 10.4236/sm.2011.14019                

Abstract

Among the evaluation techniques based upon group queries (e.g. focus group), brainstorming does not enjoy particular consideration. This might be the result of its origin and development within organizational and managerial domains, traditionally focused more on “idea production” (and problem solving) than on idea analysis within the context of evaluational and social research. This paper presents a development of classical brainstorming, which is quite useful to evaluation, where the traditional idea-producing step is followed by group analysis and exploration of the shared evaluand-specific semantic space. This evaluational brainstorming is the result of a shared understanding of the evaluand by different stakeholders, who can now ascertain their goals and draw cognitive maps to guide subsequent methodological choices and data gathering requirements.

Keywords

Brainstorming, Participate Evaluation, Social Research, Research Techniques

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Bezzi, C. (2006). Evaluation Pragmatics. Evaluation, 12, 56-76,
[2]	Bezzi, C., & Baldini, I. (2006). Il brainstorming. Pratica e teoria. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli,.
[3]	Cory, T., & Slater T. (2003). Brainstorming. Techniques for new ideas. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse Inc.
[4]	Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
[5]	Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392-403. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.392
[6]	Kay, G. (1994). Effective meetings through electronic brainstorming. Journal of Management Development, 14, 4-25.
[7]	Larey, T. S., Leggett, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Putman, V. L., & Evelyn, J. R. (1996). Social influence processes in computer brainstorming. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 3-14.
[8]	Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1958). Evidence and inference in social research, Dedalus, 87, 99-109.
[9]	Mullen, B., Johnson, C. & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming: a meta-analytic integration, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-23. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1
[10]	Rawlinson, J. G. (1986). Creative thinking and brainstorming, Aldershot: Gower Publishing.
[11]	Rich, J. R. (2003). Brain storm. Tap into your creativity to generate awesome ideas and remarkable results. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press.
[12]	Streibel, B. J. (2003). The manager’s guide to effective meetings. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[13]	Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1991). You can’t beat good experiments with correlation evidence: Mullen, Johnson, and Sala’S meta-analytic misinterpretations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 25-32. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1201_2
[14]	Stroebe, W. & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: on productivity losses in idea-generating groups, European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 271-303. doi:10.1080/14792779543000084
[15]	Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 643-650. doi:10.1177/0146167292185015