Teaching for creativity: from sage to guide to meddler

Reference: Erica McWilliam (2009) Teaching for creativity: from sage to guide to meddler,Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29:3, 281-293

Abstract: This paper serves three purposes. First, it makes a case for seeing creativity as a keylearning outcome in our times, and thus the core business of education. It then goes on
to examine the nexus of creativity and pedagogy, showing the conceptual work done to
demonstrate creativity as a learnable set of dispositions and capabilities. Finally and
most importantly, the paper argues the value of a pedagogical approach the author calls
“Meddling-in-the-Middle”, in augmenting and enhancing the repertoires of “Sage-onthe-Stage” and “Guide-on-the-Side” in order to build students’ creative capacity.
Examples are given of what these meta-approaches might look like in relation to the
teaching of Shakespeare. The author concludes by arguing the important connection
between Meddling pedagogy and creative capacity building.

Notes: A culture of teaching that values obedient attentiveness or busy work for its own sake,rather than the attention and busy-ness that speaks of productive engagement, is death to
proactive, self-managing learning. Fortunately, active engagement, rather than listening
and regurgitating, reflects the learning preferences of the present generation of learners,
who are more likely in informal environments to try things out rather than follow
instructions “from above”. If teachers can understand the value of being “usefully
ignorant” about learning options and possibilities, at the same time as they are expert in
their disciplinary field and their pedagogical practice, who are active and inventive in the
classroom, who challenge and support, who do not make things too easy, and who are not
the only source of authority, who use processes of discovery, critique, argument and
counter-argument effectively, who enjoy learning themselves and who do not rush to
rescue their students from complexity – such teachers will contribute immeasurably to the
creative capacity of their students now and in the future.

Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning

Reference: Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One, 6(2), e16782.

Abstract: The way we talk about complex and abstract ideas is suffused with metaphor. In five experiments, we explore how these metaphors influence the way that we reason about complex issues and forage for further information about them. We find that even the subtlest instantiation of a metaphor (via a single word) can have a powerful influence over how people attempt to solve social problems like crime and how they gather information to make ‘‘well-informed’’ decisions. Interestingly, we find that the influence of the metaphorical framing effect is covert: people do not recognize metaphors as influential in their decisions; instead they point to more ‘‘substantive’’ (often numerical) information as the motivation for their problem-solving decision. Metaphors in language appear to instantiate frame-consistent knowledge structures and invite structurally consistent inferences. Far from being mere rhetorical flourishes, metaphors have profound influences on how we conceptualize and act with respect to important societal issues. We find that exposure to even a single metaphor can induce substantial differences in opinion about how to solve social problems: differences that are larger, for example, than pre-existing differences in opinion between Democrats and Republicans.

Note: The best series of studies that I'm aware of in terms of understanding how people shape their reasoning when exposed to controlled metaphors. I'm glad it's being cited often in the last four years: https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?cites=10748680439318539033 

Teaching Creativity in Engineering

Reference: Daly, S. R., Mosyjowski, E. A., & Seifert, C. M. (2014). Teaching Creativity in Engineering Courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 417-449.

Abstract
The ability to engage in a creative process to solve a problem or to design a novel artifact is essential to engineering as a profession. Research indicates a need for curricula that enhance students' creative skills in engineering.

Our purpose was to document current practices in engineering pedagogy with regard to opportunities for students' creative growth by examining learning goals, instructional methods, and assessments focused on cognitive creative skills.

We conducted a critical case study of engineering pedagogy at a single university with seven engineering courses where instructors stated the goal of fostering creativity. Data included instructor and student interviews, student surveys, and course materials. For qualitative analysis, we used frameworks by Treffinger, Young, Selby, and Shepardson and by Wiggins and McTighe.

One aspect of creativity, convergent thinking (including analysis and evaluation), was well represented in the engineering courses in our case study. However, instruction on generating ideas and openness to exploring ideas was less often evident. For many of the creative skills, especially those related to divergent thinking and idea exploration, assessments were lacking.

An analysis of pedagogy focused on goals, instruction, and assessments in the engineering curriculum revealed opportunities for growth in students' creative skill development. Designing assessments that motivate students to improve their creative skills and to become more aware of their own creative process is a key need in engineering pedagogy.

Notes: Interesting in principle, the conclusion seem contentious, i.e.: that more/new assessments are needed -and that assessments motivate students.

Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela’s Contribution

Reference: Hallowell, R. (2009). Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela’s Contribution to Media Ecology: Autopoiesis, The Santiago School of Cognition, and Enactive Cognitive Science. Proceedings of the Media Ecology Assocation, 10.

Abstract: This paper provides an overview of the major body of work in the biology of cognition produced by the Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. In addition to a review of their work together, Varela’s “enactive” approach to cognition is discussed. Insights from these studies are related to the field of media ecology. In their early work together Maturana and Varela developed the idea of “autopoiesis” (self- production) as the primary feature that distinguishes living things from non-living things. From their theory of autopoiesis in biology, they develop a naturalistic, non-transcendental and observer-dependent interpretation of cognition, language, and consciousness. They argue against any absolutely objective world; instead they claim that we bring forth a world with others through the process of our living in human created worlds that arise through language and the coordination of social interaction. Implications of this view for media ecology are considered.

Notes: I first read Maturana and Varela's work as an undergraduate student of design (thanks to Fernando Shultz mainly), and what surprises me today, twenty years later, is how marginal these ideas still are, across science and in design circles. For example, even in a South American online forum where design issues are discussed, a simple comparison is quite telling:

• 39 results for "philippe starck" site:foroalfa.org
• 4 results for "humberto maturana" site:foroalfa.org

In other words, a clown is ten times more popular with designers than an intellectual who has deep contributions for understanding fundamental issues behind humans and design.

What does it mean to be design-led?

Reference: Beverland MB and Farrelly FJ (2007) What does it mean to be design-led? Design Management Review 18(4).

Notes: An interesting question, unfortunately the paper fails to address it in a meaningful way, or even address the core issues of design-led strategies. The positive aspects include:
1. What does it mean for design to be the "dominant logic" of a company?
2. Good design strategy doesn't mean good design, as obvious from Fisher and Paykel appliances: interesting briefs, awful user interfaces. Refreshing to see in this paper examples that are not the usual Apple, etc.
3. The authors get close to a very important issue but miss it with the Ford Ka case: design-led has key implications mainly outside the design departments, it is about enabling understanding of design in areas such as engineering and marketing.
4. Perhaps their most valuable insight is that design-led does not mean designer-led.

Abductive theory construction

Reference: Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory,30(3), 167-186.

Abstract: A critical pathway for conceptual innovation in the social is the construction of theoretical ideas based on empirical data. Grounded theory has become a leading approach promising the construction of novel theories. Yet grounded theory–based theoretical innovation has been scarce in part because of its commitment to let theories emerge inductively rather than imposing analytic frameworks a priori. We note, along with a long philosophical tradition, that induction does not logically lead to novel theoretical insights. Drawing from the theory of inference, meaning, and action of pragmatist philosopher Charles S. Peirce, we argue that abduction, rather than induction, should be the guiding principle of empirically based theory construction. Abduction refers to a creative inferential process aimed at producing new hypotheses and theories based on surprising research evidence. We propose that abductive analysis arises from actors’ social and intellectual positions but can be further aided by careful methodological data analysis. We outline how formal methodological steps enrich abductive analysis through the processes of revisiting, defamiliarization, and alternative casing.

Notes: A clear and well framed analysis of the role of abductive reasoning in research.

Research into Design Across Boundaries

Title: ICoRD’15 – Research into Design Across Boundaries Volume 2 Creativity, Sustainability, DfX, Enabling Technologies, Management and Applications

Editor: Chakrabarti, Amaresh (Ed.)

Description: This book showcases over 60 cutting-edge research papers from the 5th International Conference on Research into Design – the largest in India in this area – written by eminent researchers from across the world on design process, technologies, methods and tools, and their impact on innovation, for supporting design across boundaries. The special features of the book are the variety of insights into the product and system innovation process, and the host of methods and tools from all major areas of design research for the enhancement of the innovation process. The main benefit of the book for researchers in various areas of design and innovation are access to the latest quality research in this area, with the largest collection of research from India. For practitioners and educators, it is exposure to an empirically validated suite of theories, models, methods and tools that can be taught and practiced for design-led innovation.

Link: http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9788132222286

Notes: A collection of recent ideas presented in Bangalore earlier this year.

Multi-dimensional creativity

Title: Multi-dimensional creativity: a computational perspective
Authors: Ricardo Sosa & John S. Gero
Reference: Sosa, R. and Gero, J.S. (2015) Multi-dimensional creativity: a computational perspective, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2015.1026941

Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2015.1026941

Note: The aim of this paper is to provide the basis for computational models (agent-based simulations) that tackle multi-dimensional aspects of creativity. This is important because until now, computational simulations of creativity and design are almost invariably concerned with the individual aspect of creativity. For example, Harold Cohen's AARON is an influential example of a "artificial artist", built to generate artworks following an entirely "solipsistic" (awesome nonetheless) approach. Our prediction is that the next generation of computational systems will acknowledge various levels of creative systems: from the micro (neurons) to the meso (groups) and the macro (social, cultural) dimensions.

This paper presents the framework, applies it to evaluate current research on "computational creativity", and exemplifies its application in an agent-based simulation that extends a classic model of culture dissemination. 

Group dynamics (Literature review)

Reference: Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet?. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 571-612.

Abstract: We know that groups are dynamic entities, and yet we rarely study them as such. Previously hamstrung by limited theory, a decade of advances in understanding the fundamental nature of groups and change promised a revolution in group research. Our goal here is to review those theoretical developments and then examine their impact on our empirical understanding of group dynamics. Examining work done and not done, we will take stock of this work, identify the obstacles that seem to keep us focused more on group statics than dynamics, and then close by offering suggestions about not only what approaches to take when studying group dynamics, but also how the field can help develop these approaches. We hope that a review of the group dynamic literature in 2021 will celebrate our coming empirical accomplishments rather than lament a lack of them.

Notes: Always useful to see what recent literature reviews present in an area where many open questions are still present and even more are needed.

Creative Collaboration

Reference: Elsbach, K. D., & Flynn, F. J. (2013). Creative Collaboration and the Self‐Concept: A Study of Toy Designers. Journal of Management Studies, 50(4), 515-544.

Abstract: In this paper, we explored how collaborative behaviours were related to the self-concepts of creative workers. Our findings, derived from a qualitative study of corporate toy designers, showed that the personal (vs. social) identities of toy designers were most strongly related to collaborative behaviours. Further, collaborative behaviours defined as idea giving were most congruent with all toy designers' personal identities, while collaborative behaviours defined as idea taking were most incongruent with those identities. Finally, specific collaborative behaviours related to specific types of personal identities (e.g. the collaborative behaviour of ‘incorporating the ideas of others’ was especially incongruent with ‘artistic’ personal identities). Together, these results suggest that promoting collaboration among creative workers may require attention to not only idea-giving behaviours and social identities (as suggested by most extant theories), but also to idea-taking behaviours and personal identities. We discuss the implications of these findings for theories of creative collaboration and identity in organizations.

Notes: This is probably one of the best papers about creative collaboration that I've read in a while. Kimberly D. Elsbach did a very interesting and thorough job here, collecting massive amounts of data over long time periods of interviews and observations of product designers (unclear if they were a mix of industrial designers and design engineers). I think that sometimes qualitative research is considered not as rigorous as the average quantitative approach, but I'd use this as an example of what seems like a quite thorough and rigorous piece of work. The designers are then categorised as "artistic" or "problem solvers", which in principle I'd agree based on my years of experience working with designers, however the choice of words for these labels is rather unfortunate. I can also add that some designers are quite able to switch between these two archetypes depending on the situation, type of project, group or dyad dynamics, goals, etc. But overall, a very interesting contribution and I'll be citing this paper in my work. Ironically, in its first 2 years, it has only been cited 2 times. Another example of good research not being read enough.