Potential and Problems of Existing Creativity and Innovation Indices

Hœlscher, Michael; Schubert, Julia

doi:10.1080/10400419.2015.992656

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This strategy is a common practice for political decision-making in the modern knowledge society, on a national as well as on an international level (Clancy and Cronin, 2005;Nowotny, 2007;Nutley et al, 2010). This way of policymaking characterises the "instrumental" function of knowledge helping to reach its goals by, for example, basing decisions on innovative knowledge or rational facts (Boswell, 2008;Hoelscher and Schubert, 2015). However, studies analysing why expert organisations are in fact consulted in the policy context show that, in addition to their "instrumental" function in ideal contexts of evidence-based policy-making, experts' knowledge can also have a symbolic function in decision-making processes of organisations.…”

Section: Evidence-based Policy-making As An Application Of Co-producementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

Décieux

2020

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge co-production is a solution-oriented approach to analysing real-life problems such as making the right decision in a given scenario. The most popular examples come from evidence-based policymaking contexts. Political decisions made in this way rely on specialist expertise co-produced in organisations that can be characterised as Hybrid Fora. However, despite the rise in popularity of Hybrid Fora and evidence-based policymaking processes, there are only a few studies that analyse the influencing factors of knowledge co-production in these contexts. The case study presented here addresses this new area of research through a documentary analysis and 11 expert interviews, both analysed via qualitative content analysis. First, the study reconstructs how knowledge is produced within an Expert Group of the European Commission. Second, it reflects how the produced knowledge is de facto included as “evidence” into the decision-making processes of the relevant policy area. The results of this study show that in this expert group, pragmatic and extra-scientific criteria such as specific stakes and interests as well as the group hierarchy controlled the process of knowledge co-production. Moreover, it also seems that knowledge produced by the interaction of experts within the examined Expert Group has a more symbolic, policy-orientated function, rather than being specifically used as decision-making evidence.

show abstract

Section: Evidence-based Policy-making As An Application Of Co-producementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As already described, the ideal Mode 1 process of knowledge production is a "theory-driven approach" (Niemeijer, 2002). This means that theories guide the researchers as they seek the best possible indicator to cover the phenomenum of interest (Hoelscher and Schubert, 2015).…”

Section: Stage 1 Of Knowledge Production In This Hybrid Forummentioning

confidence: 99%

How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

Décieux

2020

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the existing efforts to measure creativity pay greater attention to other aspects of creativity (i.e. process, product and person) than to the climate in which creativity occurs (Craft, 2001;Hoelcher & Schubert, 2015). These efforts seem to consider only the internal or within-individual elements of creativity, excluding external elements such as the environmental factors (Amabile, 1983).…”

Section: Approaches To Measuring Creativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Said-Metwaly

Noortgate

Kyndt

2017

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a review of the literature on the measurement of creativity. Creativity definitions are discussed as a starting point for understanding the nature of this construct. The four major approaches to measuring creativity (process, person, product and press) are reviewed, pointing out commonly used instruments as well as the advantages and weaknesses of each approach. This review reveals that the measurement of creativity is an unsettled issue, and that the existing instruments purporting to measure creativity suffer from serious conceptual and psychometric shortcomings. Research gaps and suggestions for future research are discussed. INTRODUCTIONCreativity is considered as a precious asset for solving individual, organizational and social problems and achieving sustainable development (Barbot, Besançon, & Lubart, 2015;Lubart, Zenasni, & Barbot, 2013;Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2011). Accordingly, understanding the nature and determinants of creativity is of great importance to enhance its development. However, although much research has been devoted to such understanding, some controversial issues have not yet been settled.One of the most controversial issues in creativity research is the measurement of this construct (Baer & McKool, 2009; Barbot, Besançon, & Lubart, 2011; Blamiresa & Peterson, 2014;Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008;Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001;Park, Chun, & Lee, 2016;Zeng et al., 2011). The growing body of creativity research has devoted considerable attention to the development of numerous instruments assessing dif- Wim Van den NoortgateUniversity of Leuven, Belgium E-mail address: wim.vandennoortgate@kuleuven.be * This research was supported by a grant from the Government of Egypt Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/11/18 5:43 PM 239 ferent aspects of creativity, ranging from cognitive processes to environmental factors (Kaufman, Lee, Baer, & Lee, 2007;Park et al., 2016).The most prominent characteristic of this body of instruments is their diversity, indicating the complexity of defining and measuring creativity (Hocevar, 1981). In addition, these instruments have limitations, such as measuring trivial aspects of creativity or lacking adequate psychometric properties (Baer & McKool, 2009;Kaufman et al., 2007). Hence, researchers seeking to measure creativity face a number of unsolved issues, including how creativity should be defined, what particular aspects of this construct need to be valued and measured, and what the most appropriate instruments are, for measuring these aspects (Blamiresa & Peterson, 2014;Treffinger, Young, Selby, & Shepardson, 2002). In this regard, this paper aims to shed light on these issues through answering these questions:1. How is creativity defined and described in the literature? 2. What are the approaches to measuring creativity? 3. What are the most commonly used instruments in each approach? 4. What are the advantages and weaknesses of the existing approaches for measuring creativity?We try to answer these questions through systematically reviewin...

show abstract

“…In this regard, a concrete example of innovation measurement is the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS). The indicators are based on the CIS 2 to compare the innovation performance of EU countries and those of the USA and Japan, focusing on national and regional comparisons (Hoelscher & Schubert, 2015 ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smart Environments and Techno-centric and Human-Centric Innovations for Industry and Society 5.0: A Quintuple Helix Innovation System View Towards Smart, Sustainable, and Inclusive Solutions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper investigates the aviation sector, as a case in point for a Smart environment and as an example for Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 purposes. In the smart complex environments, a systemic vision of the elements, which act and are acted within a given territory, should be the basis of a hypothesis of joint growth. Indeed, the synergies activated by the system can be seen as the product of the application of a particular knowledge-based open innovation strategy, as an orientation capable of transforming theoretical assumptions into concrete operational innovation paths. Through the evidence emerged from an important case study and the application of an MCDA methodology, we have tried to identify which are the optimal solutions for the implementation of the new human-centric logics of I5.0, analyzing them on the basis of the actual benefits for the ecosystem, going beyond the self-referential aptitude of the firm to instill technological changes and managerial visions. Knowledge circulation, dialogue between sub-systems, and the ability to adapt technology and entrepreneurial strategies to the environment in which it operates (with the users as first stakeholders) seem to be necessary practices in knowledge-based innovation, prioritization, and decision-making processes, for smart, sustainable, and inclusive solutions.

show abstract

Potential and Problems of Existing Creativity and Innovation Indices

Cited by 20 publications

References 40 publications

How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Smart Environments and Techno-centric and Human-Centric Innovations for Industry and Society 5.0: A Quintuple Helix Innovation System View Towards Smart, Sustainable, and Inclusive Solutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About