Critical argumentation has a bad press in creativity techniques, which are usually based on the principle that ‘every idea is a good idea’. Our study shows that when used in an appropriate training scenario, at the right time, structured argumentation dialogue can have a beneficial effect on the progress of group creativity projects. The study was carried out with Masters students in creative design at the Royal College of Art (“RCA”, London). Groups of four students were asked to invent creative design projects and carry them through to completion over several months. In collaboration with teachers at the RCA, we designed a series of group creativity training workshops, based on the original notion of introducing ‘tensions’ in the groups, relating to time pressure, competition and interpersonal argumentation. This paper focuses on the latter approach, and analysis of the “argument clinic” dialectical role-play workshop. During 1-hour sessions, four creative design groups were firstly asked to write down individually at least three arguments for and also against their current definition of their project. The group was then split into two members playing a ‘pro’ role and the other two ‘contra’. A first debate ensued, followed by a second, when participants were asked to switch roles. Data was gathered from individual questionnaires on rating the contribution of the workshop to the ongoing project, transcribed video data and interviews during which the group was asked to identify and comment on ‘key moments’ on the video of their interaction. Results showed that: 1) students highly rated the contribution of this workshop to their project; 2) the argument clinic workshop enabled a better shared definition of the project; 3) students sometimes moved outside the interactive framework; and 4) ‘eureka’ moments of shared understanding of their project’s definition were associated with marked tension release.
