A grounded theory approach to the understanding of creativity in common spaces of universities

Abstract

Building a highly efficient environment for creative thinking has always been the core goal of a university's environmental research. However, previous studies show that there remains a lack of a subjective understanding of the relationship between physical space and creativity in universities. This study offers insights into the structure and factors that impact creativity in common spaces of universities. Based on grounded theory and following the principle of purposive sample using 20 participants in China, 462 initial codes and 45 axis codes were generated, and 5 categories were revealed for a subjective understanding of creativity in common spaces of universities: creative behaviour, characteristics in creative thinking, humanistic environment, physical space and individual potential. More specifically, creative behaviour is the core category of the above five factors. Characteristics in creative thinking include an internal impact factor, while humanistic environment and physical space are external impact factors. In addition, individual potential is the principal reason for differences in efficiency. Meanwhile, in universities' common spaces, the humanistic environment has a greater influence than that of physical space. Teachers and students have different space requirements. Closely combining the functions of information acquisition, meditation and academic exchange would help improve creativity efficiency. Lastly, this paper reveals structure theory and 23 keywords for creativity in common spaces of universities.

Music teachers’ self-reported views of creativity in the context of their work

“…Biasutti, 2013; Nerdinga et al, 2018; Schiavio et al, 2020b) as well as in other scholarly domains interested in creativity more generally (see e.g. Mace and Ward, 2002; Konecki, 2019; Wanqing et al, 2020). We chose such a methodological approach as it allows the researchers to develop an understanding of the phenomenon under examination that is not pre-defined in light of existing frameworks, but which rather reflects a more natural view of human activity and the cultural and social environment in which such an activity takes place.…”

A review of the physical context of creativity: A three‐dimensional framework for investigating the physical context of creativity

“…A group of studies that analyses the relation of physical space and creativity using different stage models of creativity also targets spatial organization. They shared the assumption that creativity consists of distinctive phases that impose different demands on facilities (Allen & Henn, 2007; Haner, 2005; Kristensen, 2004; Martens, 2011; Meusburger, 2009; see also McCoy & Evans, 2002; Sailer, 2011; Wanqing et al., 2020). In his qualitative case study, Kristensen relied on the phase model devised by Wallas (1926, cited in Kristensen, 2004), which comprises preparation, incubation, elaboration and evaluation, in organizing his research findings related to the physical context of creativity.…”

“…In addition, the literature reveals only brief mentions of ambient conditions (e.g. Hoff & Öberg, 2015; Kallio et al., 2015; Wanqing et al., 2020) or inclusions of them as items in questionnaires, together with other measures (e.g. Chaubey & Sahoo, 2018; Dul & Ceylan, 2014; Dul et al., 2011).…”

“…Second, the creativity‐enhancing physical space should accommodate different types of work—private, concentrated work on the one hand and interactive, communal work on the other hand. Third, the convertibility and flexibility of the space is important (Ajis & Naka, 2015; Coradi et al., 2015; Haner, 2005; Kelley, 2001; Kristensen, 2004; Lee, 2016; Wanqing et al., 2020). Apart from these few conclusions, it is quite difficult to offer advice (grounded in research) on whether and how creativity can be enhanced with spatial design.…”

A Grounded Theory Approach to the Influence Mechanism of Residential Behavior among Mongolian Yurt Dwellers in China

“…Japanese scholars such as Hairihan, Rie Nomura, and Koki Kitano have researched contemporary Mongolian life and changes. Their research reveals that nomads have a high degree of understanding of the of architecture involve acoustic environments [53,54], and nursing homes [55], urban spaces [56], underground spaces [57], educational spaces [58], and gardens [59].…”