Indigenous Worldviews of Creativity

Reference: Sosa, R. (2020). Indigenous Worldviews to Inform Participatory Creativity. presented at the meeting of the Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 2, Manizales, Colombia. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3384772.3385127

Abstract: This focused reflection explores how Mesoamerican worldviews can inform participatory work. Purépecha accounts of creation are examined here to discover insights and entailments that sustain other ways of creating. With this, we wish to formulate deep questions about the core beliefs and views of what design(s) can be in a more inclusive world.

My comments: This is a short paper of mine, belongs to the "Exploratory Papers" category in PDC. No comments except to recommend the proceedings of the conference in the ACM Library, free access.

Decolonizing design

Reference: Ansari, A. (2019). Decolonizing design through the perspectives of cosmological others: arguing for an ontological turn in design research and practice. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 26(2), 16-19.

Abstract: A closer attention to cultural and cosmological difference as the basis for thinking about how we redesign our own modern technological infrastructures may be the way to decolonize design research.

My comment: A short but well-presented reflection on the "decolonial turn" in design. The notion that the differences between ways of designing and ways of being across cultures is "deeper and much more fundamental" is something that resonates with me in particular. Having lived in multiple continents for a number of years, I do have experienced in my life a certain type of illusion about how we think we understand each other, within but especially across cultures. An idea that I am currently working myself is what Ansari points out here on how designers <<perceive and make sense of concepts central to design practice such as the nature of creativity>>. Ansari formulates 3 takeaways:

1. Cultivate an epistemic humility
2. See our own knowledge and perspective as local and [be] open to globalization within another's worldview
3. Show concrete examples of how things could be otherwise

You can follow Ahmed on Medium.com: https://medium.com/@aansari86

Accretion theory of creativity

Reference: Sosa, R. (2019). Accretion theory of ideation: evaluation regimes for ideation stages. Design Science, 5, e23. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.22

Abstract: This paper presents an exercise on theory building to characterise design ideation. It starts by examining how early ideas are defined and evaluated in the literature. An essentialist view is identified that explains the creativity of a final design solution by the creative qualities of early ideas attributed by external judges. Criteria for a theory of ideation that does not rely on the primacy of essence are enumerated. Advanced professional practice is examined to understand evaluation of early ideas ‘in the wild’. Accretion is then introduced as an analogical model to imaginatively drive definitions and conjectures about idea formation in the co-evolution of problem and design spaces. Vignettes from ideation episodes are used to illustrate an accretion theory of ideation. An accretion theory supports new ways to think about ideation as a complex formation process where creative solutions emerge from the synthesis of a multitude of fragmentary and partial ideas – or ‘ideasimals’. An accretion theory of ideation helps to explain the creative value of a final design solution without relying on early ideas having a creative essence, because the creativity of a solution is viewed as emergent rather than present in early versions. An accretion lens is used to suggest new ideation metrics to study the qualities of idea fragments and the process of idea formation. Definitions and relevant assessment regimes for different stages of ideation are discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion on entailments of an accretion theory and next steps for this theory building enterprise.

My comments: This is a recent paper of mine, so no comments to add other than to recommend the rest of the papers in this collection of the Design Science journal themed around the future of design cognition studies, all open access. Do contact me if you find these ideas of interest or want to comment, thank you.

Creative Action: Rethinking dynamic capabilities

Reference: MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R., & Seidl, D. (2015). Rethinking dynamic capabilities from a creative action perspective. Strategic Organization, 13(4), 340-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015593274

Abstract: Dynamic capabilities research aims to explain how firms manage to change in order to sustain their competitive advantage. Yet, despite considerable progress, dynamic capabilities theorizing struggles to capture novelty, which lies at the heart of change. We argue that this is caused by inherent limitations of the ways in which human action has been conceptualized: dynamic capabilities theorizing to date is based on rational or normative notions of actions, neither of which account for novelty in action. Hence, we propose that to overcome this impasse dynamic capabilities research needs to incorporate a concept of creative action into its theoretical apparatus. We elaborate on the positioning of creative action relative to existing dynamic capabilities theorizing and outline its implications for future dynamic capabilities research.

My comments: This is a very strong essay that sets to go beyond the rational/normative accounts of human action in regard to creativity. Reading work from across disciplines often leads us to important sources that are very relevant to what we do, yet we had never heard of. This paper introduced me to the work of Hans Joas, in particular his 1996 book "The Creativity of Action", which I now look forward to reading soon as it turns out framed a situationalist view of creativity. The paper by MacLean et al. is also a good model for papers of this type: it presents a clear and well-informed account of the limitations of the current paradigm on dynamic capabilities (DC), and then clearly presents an alternative way of defining these when one considers Emerging intention, Embodied expression, and Interactive identity formation, the three components of creative action. Based on these three ideas, the authors follow lines of inferences that lead to novel ways of understanding DC. The final section on "Implications" is well-presented and includes research questions as well as decisions on research methods. The paper is of a conceptual nature, and its methodology is rhetorics. 

Creative leaders promote creative organizations

Reference: Gro Ellen Mathisen, Ståle Einarsen, Reidar Mykletun, (2012) "Creative leaders promote creative organizations", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 33 Issue: 4, pp.367-382, https://doi-org.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/10.1108/01437721211243741

Abstract: – The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of leaders’ creativity as a predictor of organizational creativity. The authors expected that creative leaders would promote creativity directly by functioning as a model and inspiration for their followers and indirectly by promoting a creativity‐supporting work climate. Significant positive associations were found between leaders’ creative behavior, organizational creative climates, and organizational creative behavior. Mediation analyses revealed that the relationship between leaders’ creative behavior and organizational creativity was mediated by organizational creative climate.

My comments: Interesting to have evidence to support such basic ideas. The core ideas reveal important methodological issues, ways of seeing the problems that are shaped by the quantitative lens, i.e.: "A positive relationship exists between leaders’ creative behavior and organizational creativity". I mean, it's reasonable to test for such positive relationship, but what does that really tell us about the nature and shape of such relationship? Not much. The study was conducted in small Norwegian restaurants, via questionnaires -and it's always interesting to see the criteria and procedure of data collection. They measured the following constructs: "leader personality", "creative work climates", and two outputs: "organizational creative behaviour" and "organizational creative outputs". I find it incredibly frustrating that one of the most crucial aspects is often omitted in these papers, namely: What and how exactly did you ask participants? Here, only two sample items are made explicit: “we generate new ideas or proposals” and “we accomplish our new ideas or proposals”. What the (highly diverse) group of respondents may have interpreted by that is a "black box" as is usually the case in questionnaire-based approaches. Anyway. Perhaps even more problematic, this is how "creative outputs" was measured: "external evaluators were asked to assess the extent to which the restaurant was considered creative according to ten different areas when compared with other similar restaurants"... meaning what the researchers really measured was the perception of a very peculiar group: "employees at public offices for the advisory of employees and apprentices within the hotel and restaurant sector" via another questionnaire (which we also don't get to see). I mean, I do understand the strength of quantitative approaches, but for all the objectivity claimed for this type of studies, it's always remarkable how obscure and ambiguous are some of the core steps. An "overview" of the items used to ask these people how different a restaurant is, includes: interior decoration, menu layout, meal appearance, and children's menu. I mean, as if the entire area of "experience design" didn't exist.

Of course, also based on the methodological tools used, any conclusions formulated by the study (seem quite reasonable, by the way) lack any explanatory power in terms of the causality -it is entirely possible that the type of leadership and the perceived differentiation by public employees are but effects of something else not addressed by the researchers. But yes, this study can be cited as "preliminary support" (words of the authors) of the elementary idea that the disposition of a leader is connected to the performance of the organisation in factors related to originality and creativity.

Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.

Reference: Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.

Abstract: This article presents a model for quality in qualitative research that is uniquely expansive, yet flexible, in that it makes distinctions among qualitative research’s means (methods and practices) and its ends. The article first provides a contextualization and rationale for the conceptualization. Then the author presents and explores eight key markers of quality in qualitative research including (a) worthy topic, (b) rich rigor, (c) sincerity, (d) credibility, (e) resonance, (f) significant contribution, (g) ethics, and (h) meaningful coherence. This eight-point conceptualization offers a useful pedagogical model and provides a common language of qualitative best practices that can be recognized as integral by a variety of audiences. While making a case for these markers of quality, the article leaves space for dialogue, imagination, growth, and improvisation.

Notes: [It's been a while since my last blog post!] I'll keep it short: design research REALLY needs to look at this type of papers where criteria of quality and rigour are discussed across research cultures and disciplines. Design research needs to develop its own criteria. 

A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research

Reference: Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political analysis, 14(3), 227-249.

Abstract: The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to explanation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive “cross-cultural” communication in political science.

I found the book version of this paper by the same authors very interesting. Although my main interests or experiences don't include Political Science, the ideas by these authors apply to any disciplinary traditions. The way they dissect the similarities and differences across ways of doing research (cultures) has helped me significantly to shape my collaborations.

Design Self-Diagnosis Applications for Non-Patients

Design Self-Diagnosis Applications for Non-Patients

The dialectics of serendipity in Management

Reference: Pina e Cunha, M., Rego, A., Clegg, S., & Lindsay, G. (2015). The dialectics of serendipity. European Management Journal, 33(1), 9-18.

Abstract: Serendipity in organizations has often been perceived as a mysterious occurrence. We approach the process of serendipity via reconsideration of Honda’s entry into the US market using an alternate templates analysis, showing that serendipity can be conceptually interpreted as the synthesis of preparation and openness to novelty, articulated through generative doubt. In this sense, it can be thought of as a dialectical process that thrives through the creative synthesis of the existing and the new. It is a practical accomplishment rather than an organizational form of mystery.

I enjoyed reading this, here's my favourite part: "We asked “how do organizations turn luck into serendipity”, and responded that they do so via the dialectical interplay of preparation, openness, and doubt. Serendipity can thus be defined as unexpected observations framed as opportunities, made actionable by a frame of reference that is kept dynamic via the cultivation of doubt..."

Meta-analysis in design research: role of examples

Reference: Sio, U. N., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2015). Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review of the role of examples on design processes. Design Studies,39, 70-99.

Some papers make it straight to my reading list (and this blog) due to their title, venue, and authors. This is a clear example. I'm looking forward to reading this paper for several reasons:
1. Jon Cagan's excellent track record and diverse research interests
2. By itself, interesting to see meta-analyses in the field of design research
3. May be quite useful to see their findings and interpretations of the (I assume) non-obvious influences that precedents play in design processes.

I hope to see some insights here on disciplinary differences, as I know that examples play a hugely different role across design areas, from robotics to architecture, graphic design, games, mechanical design, etc.