Guest Editorial

Abstract

Creativity is a modem concept. Although the Oxford English Dictionary shows the word created appearing as early as 1393, creative in the sense of imaginative does not show up until 1745, creativeness in 1820, and creativity in 1875. These last examples all refer to poetic imagination. Creativity in arenas other than the arts appears to be an even more contemporary notion. We now speak of creative thinking, creative problem solving, and creative living. A minor flood of books has appeared to help us learn how to apply creativity to our work and lives-often carrying fanciful titles, such as Roger Von Oech' s Whack on the Side of the Head .,. and Kick in the Seat of the Pants. Can we be creative in the workplace, particularly one that is as heavily systematized, bureaucratized, and interdependent as an academic library? Is there a paradox in trying to be both creative and systematic? Or is it possible to have systems that encourage, reward, and promote creativity? Some of the most-discussed creative minds of recent history have worked with a medium that is the zenith of system and rigidity-the simple-minded on/off computer bit. Names that spring to mind include Nolan Bushnell and the video game; two guys named Steve creating Apple Computer in a garage; Bill Gates dropping out of Harvard to write the first BASIC for a small computer, which led to Microsoft Corporation; Raymond Kl;lrzweil inventing the talking reading machine for the visually impaired. .. the list could be much longer, obviously. James Watson and Francis Crick's Double Helix, the bestseller that chronicled the discovery of DNA, made a lasting impact on me. The mystery and wonder of two slender intertwined threads that carry the secret of life, however, offered a stark contrast to the obvious laziness, competitiveness, and mental playfulness in which the discoverers were engaged. Racing to be the first to uncover the exact structure of DNA, the pair spent more time in-r British pubs, gossiping, and otherwise avoiding work than they did in the sober and systematic pursuits of the laboratory. What they were doing, clearly, was thinking creatively, sometimes systematically, but mostly by indirection, by using play to ''unleash hidden potential,'' as the creativity gurus like to say. In the December 1986 issue of the AAHE Bulletin Patricia Hutchings writes about the value of creativity as an outcome of liberal education and how it might be taught to undergraduates. She implies that creativity is not so much a skill as a mental mode that can be fostered by three classroom strategies. Creativity in our professional lives, I think, can be encouraged in much the same ways. Risk taking needs to be encouraged. A 1986 study, ''The Effective College President,'' found that effective leaders take more risks and encourage others to be creative as well. Risk taking is more an everyday frame of mind than a matter of gambling on big issues. Small risks include accepting and accommodating a certain amount of ambiguity, trying out untried approaches to problems, thinking...