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!

Neuroanatomy of Creativity

Title: Neuroanatomy of Creativity
Authors: Rex E. Jung,Judith M. Segall, H. Jeremy Bockholt, Ranee A. Flores, Shirley M. Smith, Robert S. Chavez, andRichard J. Haier
Abstract: Creativity has long been a construct of interest to philosophers, psychologists and, more recently, neuroscientists. Recent efforts have focused on cognitive processes likely to be important to the manifestation of novelty and usefulness within a given social context. One such cognitive process – divergent thinking – is the process by which one extrapolates many possible answers to an initial stimulus or target data set. We sought to link well established measures of divergent thinking and creative achievement (Creative Achievement Questionnaire – CAQ) to cortical thickness in a cohort of young (23.7 ± 4.2 years), healthy subjects. Three independent judges ranked the creative products of each subject using the consensual assessment technique (Amabile, 1982) from which a “composite creativity index” (CCI) was derived. Structural magnetic resonance imaging was obtained at 1.5 Tesla Siemens scanner. Cortical reconstruction and volumetric segmentation were performed with the FreeSurfer image analysis suite. A region within the lingual gyrus was negatively correlated with CCI; the right posterior cingulate correlated positively with the CCI. For the CAQ, lower left lateral orbitofrontal volume correlated with higher creative achievement; higher cortical thickness was related to higher scores on the CAQ in the right angular gyrus. This is the first study to link cortical thickness measures to psychometric measures of creativity. The distribution of brain regions, associated with both divergent thinking and creative achievement, suggests that cognitive control of information flow among brain areas may be critical to understanding creative cognition.

My notes: I'll be brief because I don't know anything about neuroscience, I respect experts that study our brain, the abstract is long enough, and this type of papers are SO easy to comment. Here is their key statement: "The distribution of significant areas throughout the brain, found in the current study, suggests that information flow among brain areas may be a key to creativity". If you know more about neuroscience you can read and understand it much better. But, still the question will be: "So what?". As Dieteich says in "Who is afraid of a cognitive neuroscience of creativity?", such brain mapping projects rest on the fundamental assumption that something identified as "creativity" can be localised in the human brain. I was expecting to read in this paper even a short explanation as to why locating a brain region that performs a specific mental function matters in order to understand creativity. Alas, the authors fail to explain this.

Learning from Architects: The Difference between Knowledge Visualization and Information Visualization

Title: Learning from Architects: The Difference between Knowledge Visualization and Information Visualization  

Author: Remo A Burkhard

Year: 2004

Abstract: This paper focuses on an aspect which has been neglected, but which is decisive: The transfer of knowledge to different stakeholders; especially the transfer of insights derived from information visualization tools. In knowledge management the transfer of knowledge is a core process, which can be improved by using our innate abilities to process visual representations. The potential of visualizations are manifold. But business managers miss a holistic framework on the use of visualization methods for information exploration and communication tasks. This paper analyzes how architects use visualizations to amplify cognition

and to transfer knowledge. It introduces a mediating framework that brings together isolated research directions and defines the new research focus knowledge visualization. Knowledge visualization examines the use of visualizations for the transfer of knowledge between at least two peoples. We found that the new focus is decisive and has implications for researchers in information visualization and knowledge management.

My notes: The writing quality of this paper is well above average, I would recommend it to every graduate student (not only information visualisation scholars) as an example of weel organised, original and clear academic writing. It is also a very neat example of a cross-disciplinary work: bridging ideas from one field onto another. After analysing sketches, models and computer representations, the author builds a framework for "knowledge representations": knowledge type, recipient and visualisation type. This framework is (consistently with the area) represented as a Cube where the researcher can select the target values along the three dimensions.

A Three-Dimensional View of Personality

Title: A Three-Dimensional View of Personality 

Authors: Mayer, John D. Lang, Jenny L. 

Source: Psychological Inquiry. January-March 2011, Vol. 22, Issue 1, p36-39, 4p.

Personal notes: This paper contains some key notions that represent (part of) model-building in the (social) sciences. First, here are some statements to consider:

1. "Consequently, it seems better to speak of the personality system as embedded in..."
2. "It would be elegant and consistent to extend the use of the levels approach..."
3. "We believe that discussing personality's inner function requires a different kind of conceptual tool..."
4. "To be valid, models must cover personality comprehensively, have clear distinctions among divisions, and be scientifically useful."
5. "Their application of multilevel modeling... makes possible clearer communication..."

I'm in no way criticising the scientific traditions of research in psychology, what drew my attention is that these five statements illustrate very clearly the assumptions of (part of) the field. Clearly, theoretical models whether 'validated' by empirical means or presented under argumentative bases, "seem better/worse" to authors, reviewers, editors and possibly readers of psychology studies. The field also has an aesthetic criterion by which these people qualify a model by its elegance and (internal) consistency. Beliefs based on experience and intuition do play an important role in the development of science. Finally, any model is judged by its ability to enable clear communication between researchers -and perhaps also practitioners? Perhaps this and other criteria of "scientific utility" next to the latent assumptions and implications of such ideas should be more clearly discussed in the literature. It is my impression that in psychology and in every other single scientific field that deals with humans, too many assumptions too often remain implicit.

Perhaps, just like "Introduction", "Background", etc sections, journals could require authors to have an "Assumptions" section where they made explicit their own and their field's unspoken beliefs, concepts and terms?