Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity

Fischer, Gerhard; Giaccardi, Elisa; Eden, Hal; Sugimoto, Masanori; Ye, Yunwen

doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.014

Cited by 237 publications

(183 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

178

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the model is general: it does not assume any particular type of research question, method, or results. Finally, it represents the cyclic dynamic that is emphasized in many participatory, and/or action, research approaches (Lewin 1946, Bousquet et al 1999, Goldspink 2002, Fischer et al 2005, List 2006). …”

Section: Consultativementioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons

Barreteau

Bots²,

Daniell³

2010

E&S

174

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Consultativementioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons

Barreteau

Bots²,

Daniell³

2010

E&S

174

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Finally, when work is completed innovators need better tools to disseminate their results. The balance of attention between individual and social creativity will ensure that both strategies get sufficient attention [3].…”

Section: Creative Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creativity Support Tools: A Grand Challenge for HCI Researchers

Shneiderman

2008

Engineering the User Interface

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-computer interaction researchers can play a key role in designing, implementing, and evaluating a new generation of creativity support tools. Understanding creative processes, especially when mediated by user interfaces will remain a continuing challenge, especially in dealing with novice and expert users, across a variety of disciplines. The expected outcomes include (1) refined theories of technology-supported creative processes, (2) active discussion of useroriented empirical research methods, (3) new software architectures, database management strategies, and networking technologies, and (4) improved user interfaces to support discover and innovation, especially in collaborative environments.

show abstract

“…The first reflects a rather theoretical approach (e.g., Fischer et al, 2005) referring to the social origins and manifestation of the creative process as opposed to a picture of the creative individual working in a social vacuum. The other two notions consider more particular instances of at least two individuals working together to generate a creative outcome.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How are we creative together? Comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural answers

Glăveanu

2011

Theory & Psychology

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article aims to distinguish between a sociocognitive and a sociocultural approach to forms of "collective" creativity. While the first is well-illustrated in studies of group or team creativity, the second has generally supported investigations of collaborative creativity, most of them performed in the last few decades. The comparison between these two fields takes different levels into account, from the epistemological position adopted to issues concerning the theories and methods used. Special attention is given to reviewing models of creativity. While the literature on group creativity contains several cognitive models, there is a scarcity of such constructions for collaborative creativity. This is why a secondary aim of this material is to introduce a sociocultural theoretical framework and discuss its implications for developing situated models of creativity. In the end, the similarities and differences between the two paradigms are examined with reference to both theory and research and arguments are given for why it would be beneficial for sociocognitivists and socioculturalists to engage in a more consistent dialogue.The title question, despite having a "long history" of theoretisation, has only benefited from what can be considered a relatively "short past" of intensive psychological research. By and large, in both psychology and related disciplines, most efforts have been devoted to understanding how the individual is creative. Historically, accounts such as that of Le Bon (1896), generally exemplified the negative influence of "others" (the crowd) upon the mental functioning and behaviour of the person. Added to this background, that greatly inspired theories of social influence, another difficulty made answering creativity questions even more problematic and that is the obscure nature of the creative process. There is little doubt that creativity is an important value in our contemporary society and, consequently, it became object of study for a variety of disciplines.Only in psychology creativity has been explored using diverse theoretical frameworks such as: biological, behavioural, clinical, cognitive, psychometric, developmental etc. (see Runco, 2004).Still, after intensive investigations, starting from the 1950s, there are authors who still assert that "creativity is something we desperately need, but we do not know how to get it, and we are not really sure what it is" (Smith et al., 2006, p. 3). 2Considering the above, it is not difficult to understand why, in the beginning at least, the main research question was not "how are we creative together?" but "can we be creative together?" A tradition of embedding creativity into the mind of the person, supported early on by the studies of Galton (1869) on hereditary genius, led to an exclusivist and decontextualised focus on individual creativity (Hennessey, 2003). While plenty of published materials contemplated the image of the lone genius, the influence of group factors on creativity received limited attention and when it did it was g...

show abstract

Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity

Cited by 237 publications

References 16 publications

A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons

A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons

Creativity Support Tools: A Grand Challenge for HCI Researchers

How are we creative together? Comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural answers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity

Cited by 237 publications

References 16 publications

A Framework for Clarifying &#8220;Participation&#8221; in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons

A Framework for Clarifying &#8220;Participation&#8221; in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons

Creativity Support Tools: A Grand Challenge for HCI Researchers

How are we creative together? Comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural answers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons

A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons