Shikakeology

Title: Shikakeology: From framework to implementation
Authors: Naohiro Matsumura and Renate Fruchter
Reference: Matsumura, N., & Fruchter, R. (2014). Special issue: Shikakeology: From framework to implementation. AI & SOCIETY, 1-3.

Abstract: Shikake is a Japanese word with a wide range of meanings regarding triggers for behavior change, and using shikakes to change behaviors could be a promising and feasible approach for making the world better. However, the methodology for developing a new shikake is not well studied. To define such a methodology, Dr. Naohiro Matsumura, one of the editors of this special issue, coined the term ‘‘Shikakeology’’ in 2011 as a new academic field where the mechanism underlying a shikake as an artifact, a theory, a system, and a practice designed to change behavior can be discussed and understood.

Notes: The concept of 'shikake' seems very very similar to 'nudges' introduced by Thaler and Sunstein in their 2008 book by the same name. This is a special journal of AI&Society worth reading. Is this another case of reinventing the wheel, or using different terms to refer to the same concept -not sure.

Social simulation and cognitive models

Title: When does social simulation need cognitive models?
Author: Nigel Gilbert
Reference: Gilbert, N. (2006). When does social simulation need cognitive models.Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction, 428.

Abstract: Contributors to this volume have explored the ways in which cognitive models or architectures may be helpful or even essential for building simulations. In this epilogue, I shall be considering whether cognitive model are always necessary – is a social simulation necessarily inadequate if it has no or only a very simple model of cognition? If not, is it possible to specify classes of simulations for which cognitive models are necessary or unnecessary?

Notes: Brief editorial with some clear ideas on multi-level agent simulations (but can't seem to be able to find this book online)...

How future CAD systems looked in 1983

Title: "Future CAD systems"
Author: K. Preiss
Journal: Computer-Aided Design, 15(4), 223-227

This paper presents a rather informal view of what the author considered to be the "changes which are clearly coming". Not surprisingly, the future as portrayed here is rather conservative, merely projecting what was being developed at the moment. The paper is worth reading for a number of reasons, including the common flaws in forecasting the future. How will CAD systems look in 30 years?

Guidelines for the future based on the past

There is a fundamental problem with management research, the whole field takes for granted that you can build the future by applying guidelines extracted from the past. Design research often tends to do the same, and the results can only be mediocre.

Here is an example from: Hayagreeva Rao and Robert Sutton: How Do You Scale Excellence?: "they interviewed business leaders, reviewed research, and studied and conducted case studies "
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/hayagreeva-rao-robert-sutton-how-do-you-scale-excellence

I won't list here everything that is wrong with such assumption, and of course it is valuable to learn from the past. Just imagine if in creativity, innovation and design people were making decisions based on what leaders say in interviews and what case studies showed to be successful in the past. Who in their right mind would think that repeating the same decisions would make sense in the future?

Analysing the writing of a paper

This entry is not about a paper, but a tool to diagnose and analyse writing. Of course, the first thing is to use it to analyse one own's writing (and improve it), but it's also quite interesting as a way of testing how 'readable' are papers in our field (written by others, including famous authors and scholars). I just did this with a few of the most influential papers (the Introduction section anyway), and the results are quite interesting (worrying or amusing, it depends on how serious you are about 'good writing' and how much you trust these tools to measure 'readability'). A couple of these papers were in the "Heart attack territory". Now, since these papers are widely cited and influential in my field, shall we conclude that writing in this community is not a particularly important criterion? See for yourself: http://www.writersdiet.com/WT.php 

Self‐reported differences in creativity across 56 domains and with hidden interpretations of the rating instrument

Title: Self‐reported differences in creativity by ethnicity and gender
Authors: Kaufman, J.C.
Source: Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self‐reported differences in creativity by ethnicity and gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(8), 1065-1082.

Abstract: Creativity assessment has been proposed as a supplement to intellectual testing, in part because of
reduced differences by ethnicity; creativity testing might also specifically help reduce stereotype threat.
Recent trends in creativity research point to a domain-specific view challenging the more traditional
generalist view. With these trends in mind, the current study assessed creative self-perceptions of 3553
students and community members in 56 different possible domains distributed across five factors (as
determined by principal components analysis). African Americans were less likely to fall prone to
gender stereotypes in creativity. In addition, African Americans and Native Americans tended to rate
themselves as more creative than other ethnicities. Specific trends in the factors and implications for
future research are discussed.

Notes: Large scale survey asking mainly students "How creative are you?" in 56 domains ranging from travel to woodworking, physics, political science, sports, etc. Interesting to see that after complex statistical pirouettes, some conclusions are built about ethnicity, gender and self-reported creativity, only to admit in the end that: "it is unknown if people conceived of creativity as the same construct across all domains. People may have had a difficult time imagining what it meant to be creative in certain domains (such as the sciences)." Another way of viewing this is based on experience is that no, of course people did not conceive of creativity as the same construct (across people and across domains), a simple word association survey shows evidence. Then, "In addition, some people may have conflated their skill in a domain with their creativity in that domain. Another possibility is that some people or groups simply showed a tendency to use the lower or upper ends of the Likert scale." Anyone involved in grading, and particularly coordinating a group if graders (as in competitions, selection committees, classes) knows that indeed, people interpret differently values in a Likert scale... So, like in many other papers, the "science" seems to rest on the use of statistical measurements and the "validity" on the 'big data', but the essential concepts behind the experiment are incredibly limited, making any claims extremely weak.

Participatory design: Issues and concerns

Reference: Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3-4), 167-185.

Abstract: We characterize Participatory Design (PD) as a maturing area of research and as an evolving practice among design professionals. Although PD has been applied outside of technology design, here we focus on PD in relation to the introduction of computer-based systems at work. We discuss three main issues addressed by PD researchers; the politics of design; the nature of participation; and method, tools and techniques for participation. We also report on the conditions for the transfer of “PD results” to workers, user groups, and design professionals that have characterized PD over time and across geopolitical terrains. The topic of the sustainability of PD within an organizational context is also considered. The article concludes with a discussion of common issues explored within PD and CSCW and frames directions for a continuing dialogue between researchers and practitioners from the two fields. The article draws on a review of PD and CSCW literatures as well as on our own research and practical experiences.

Comments: This is a highly influential paper (500+ citations) and is a must-read for those interested in Participatory Design. I found particularly interesting these ideas: "Among the activities of the work groups are developing a common understanding of the current relations between technology and the organization of work, exploring new organizational forms, formulating system requirements, and prototyping new systems… Equally important to the principles of organization are the issues of resource and time allocation... Responsibilities and accountabilities also vary depending on how projects are supported and initiated... There are also a variety of ways in which PD projects are initiated... Some PD projects are undertaken to explore specific technology possibilities while others have a more open-ended technology agenda"

"'Clement and Van den Besselar (1993) note that the experimental nature of most PD projects often leads to small-scale projects which are isolated from other parts of the organization. When the researchers leave, the participatory processes seldom diffuse to other organizational entities."

Contextual Understanding by Computers

Title: Contextual Understanding by Computers
Author: J. Weizenbaum
Year: 1967
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/572/S02/weizenbaum.eliza.1967.pdf

Abstract: "A further development of a computer program (ELIZA) capable of conversing in natural language is discussed. The importance of context to both human and machine understanding is stressed. It is argued that the adequacy of the level of understanding achieved in a particular conversation depends on the purpose of that conversation, and that absolute understanding on the part of either humans or machines is impossible"

Brief comment: This AI paper from 1967 has only around 100 citations, in contrast to the more than two thousand citation of the authors' original article from the previous year on ELIZA, one of the earliest chatterbox programs (it's really interesting to remember that this work was done in the 1960s). Some of the ideas here remain very valid after nearly 50 years. This is remarkable. Worth reading next: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction

Title:  Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction
Authors: Michael Hoffmann
Link: http://apertum.110mb.com/library_csp/CSP_Problems%20with%20Peirces%20%20Abduction.pdf

Reference: Hoffmann, M. (1999). Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction. Foundations of Science, 4(3), 271-305.

Abstract: Abductive reasoning takes place in forming “hypotheses” in order to explain “facts.” Thus, the concept of abduction promises an understanding of creativity in science and learning. It raises, however, also a lot of problems. Some of them will be discussed in this paper. After analyzing the difference between induction and abduction (1), I shall discuss Peirce’s claim that there is a “logic” of abduction (2). The thesis is that this claim can be understood, if we make a clear distinction between inferential elements and perceptive elements of abductive reasoning. For Peirce, the creative act of forming explanatory hypotheses and the emergence of “new ideas” belongs exclusively to the perceptive side of abduction. Thus, it is necessary to study the role of perception in abductive reasoning (3). A further problem is the question whether there is a relationship between abduction and Peirce’s concept of “theorematic reasoning” in mathematics (4). Both forms of reasoning could be connected, because both are based on perception. The last problem concerns the role of instincts in explaining the success of abductive reasoning in science, and the question whether the concept of instinct might be replaced by methods of inquiry

Notes: I've found really hard to find clear and useful papers discussing Peirce's notion of abductive reasoning (probably more comprehensive term instead of logic of abduction). Anyway, Hoffmann writes very clearly and this paper is extremely useful for anyone interested in creativity and creative reasoning.

On creativity of slime mould

Title: On creativity of slime mould
Authors: Andrew Adamatzky, Rachel Armstrong, Jeff Jones & YukioPegio Gunji
Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03081079.2013.776206

Abstract: Slime mould Physarum polycephalum is large single cell with intriguingly smart behaviour. The slime mould shows outstanding abilities to adapt its protoplasmic network to varying environmental conditions. The slime mould can solve tasks of computational geometry, image processing, logics and arithmetics when data are represented by configurations of attractants and repellents. We attempt to map behavioural patterns of lime onto the cognitive control vs. schizotypy spectrum phase space and thus interpret slime mould’s activity in terms of creativity"

My notes: What can I say? The title says it all. Creativity is definitely on the eye of the researcher!