norman's website
  • Home
  • Blogs
    • Scraps of life blog
    • Creative Academic >
      • BYOD4L BLOG
    • Garden Notes
  • Books
  • Change
  • Creativity
  • Professional services
  • Contact me
  • NTU
  • creativejam
  • CRC
  • GMIT
  • BNU STUDY VISIT
  • AIT
  • portsmouth
  • DIT
  • TLC
  • BERA
  • ICOLACE4
  • PDP
  • OUC
  • MMUni
  • Derby
  • dmucreatives
  • Chester
  • Brighton
  • Buckinghamshire
  • Hallam
  • St Marys
  • LIMERICK
  • kingston
  • UWL
  • SEDA
  • MACAO
  • Beijing
  • IFIUT
  • CRA seminar
  • FBSEworkshop
  • birmingham
  • Creativity in Higher Education
  • graduatestandardsprogramme
  • MAKING MEANING
  • Untitled
  • Blogs
  • SURVEY

Creatvity and new value : Mapping who values creativity

22/11/2020

0 Comments

 
Over the past week we have been having an interesting discussion on creativity and value in the #creativeHE forum  https://www.facebook.com/groups/creativeHE Who values creativity has been dominant theme. What has emerged is a general agreement that creators themselves are first and foremost their own judges of value and are presumably motivated to engage in creative thinking and practices by the possibility and potential of creating something of value to themselves or others. But we live in a social-cultural economic world and other people have views on whether a practice, performance or product has value and it’s their views that count as to whether something has value in a social-cultural or commercial sense. In the latter part of the discussion we saw that value was multidimensional and it is therefore not surprising that we value ‘things’ differently according to the weight we accord the different dimensions. For me, the really interesting aspect of this is how we learn to value what we value through a lifetime of exposure to the norms of our family, friends and peers, our interests and work and our culture and other cultures, noting that it is only by pursuing things which lie outside the norms that we can creatively achieve. I find this a fascinating part of the conundrum that is creativity and perhaps what we value and our judgement of it in what we do, is an part of our unique creativity.
 
As Carly Lassig mentioned in her post we can use the 5C framework (1) we developed from the 4C framework (2) to map the contexts for creating new value and the location of norms for judging the value of creative achievements. By this I mean a tangible expression or manifestation of someone’s creativity (thinking and actions) in the formation of something new (practice, performance or product). To keep it simple the following narrative focuses only on individuals rather than collaborations or group enterprises.

In all domains of the 5C framework creators are engaged in thinking and practices that have the potential to create novelty and new value. As Carl Rogers’ humanistic perspective on creativity tells us (3), first and foremost it is the creators themselves who value their creative achievement. Only they can understand why and how the phenomenon emerged in the circumstances of their life and only they can experience the formation of a creative achievement. The value they ascribe to an achievement might be very different to the value that others ascribe.
Picture
​In the little-c domain individuals pursue novelty and create new value in the circumstances of their everyday life. Their creative achievements might only be known and valued by themselves or by the people who their achievements directly affect – for example a mum preparing a novel meal (not the norm) for her family. But such achievements might be broadcast more widely and appreciated by others – people who use Instagram, Twitter or Facebook for example have friends/followers who might be interested in their creative achievement. In such an environment some of these little-c achievements have the potential to ‘go viral’ to become part of popular culture, even if its only for a short period of time. It can be argued that the advent of social media enables more people to be exposed to individuals’ little-c creative achievements, and therefore implicated in their valuation, than at any time in our history.             
                                  
In the educational domain (ed-c) judgements on the value of an individual’s achievement are usually made by a teacher against a set of pre-determined criteria but may also include external examiners if performance is in the context of an examination. As Carly indicates in her post based on her own research (4) – how a learner values their creative achievement may be different to what a teacher values. Teachers have an important role to play in sharing their judgements of value through verbal or written feedback during the production of an achievement – whether a performance or artefact. Much of this feedback is informal and spontaneous as a teacher interacts with her students, but some of the feedback might be more formal and deliberative as a teacher formally evaluates and judges a piece of work and provides written feedback. Chrissi’s post on her interactions with her tutor on a creative writing course, show values can be shared, communicated and progressively understood through this interactive relationship. Peers also may be exposed to an individual’s achievement and their teacher’s comments and they also form opinions on value. In fact, this context for being exposed to the achievements of others is the way in which we come to understand the norms of our environment and it prepares us for learning what this means in the domains in which we will work.

As we move into domains of expertise, more people are involved in decisions as to whether a creative achievement is of value. Every context is different, if we imagine the development of a new innovative product it might include peers in a design team, managers, sales reps, managers of retail outlets and the buyers and users of the product – the customers. In an entrepreneurial environment like a start-up the valuation of a new product or service it might also involve investors. In the commercial world factors other than creativity come into play in the valuation of a novel product. In the academic world where the development of new knowledge and ideas is the product of creative achievement – it is experts in the discipline who act as peer reviewers, journal editors or who sit in the committees of grant awarding bodies who judge value. If we imagine someone in the performing arts field it might include other performers, a performance director and production teams, audiences and professional critics. Of course, amongst this diverse group of actors some voices will be more influential than others in determining value and persuading others with their opinions.

The Big-C level is an extraordinary achievement in any field in which the value of what is created is widely acknowledged. The valuing of such achievements is usually led by experts in the field and promoted through awards, media and education. One of the features of Big-C creative achievements is their enduring character. They are often the foundational building blocks for culture in a domain and so are valued in a historical sense for advancing some aspect of the domain.
​
Perhaps one of the most interesting perspectives to emerge from the discussion related to where access to new ideas or products are restricted for commercial, political or other reasons, so that value can only be appreciated by those with the power to control the flow of information.
​
Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion.

 
Sources
1 Jackson, N.J. and Lassig, C. (2020) Exploring and Extending the 4C Model of Creativity: Recognising the value of an ed-c contextual domain. Creative Academic Magazine CAM15 https://www.creativeacademic.uk/magazine.html
2 Kaufman, J and Behgetto R (2009) Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity Review of General Psychology Vol. 13, No. 1, 1–12
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/.../228345133_Beyond_Big_and...
3 Rogers, C. (1954). Toward a Theory of Creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249-260.
4 Lassig, C. J. (2012) Perceiving and pursuing novelty : a grounded theory of adolescent creativity. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/50661/
0 Comments

Creativity - are we navigating between novelty that is new to individuals and orginality that is unique to culture?

11/11/2020

0 Comments

 
One of the challenges of creativity – perhaps the biggest challenge is to comprehend it as a phenomenon that embraces the acts of individuals that have significance and meaning only to them, and the acts of creative giants who quite literally change the way we see and experience the world at a cultural or cross-cultural level.

In my previous post, using the 5C adaptation (1) of James Kaufman and Ron Beghetto’s 4C model of creativity (2) I tried to show schematically how we can embrace the humanistic individualistic view of creativity typified by the thinking of Carl Rogers (3) and the systems cultural way of thinking typified by the thinking of Mihaly Csikszentmihaly (4).

I’d like to take this reasoning a step further in the context of the question I posed at the start about novelty and value. I think we can use the 5C framework to show that at the little-c ed-c part of the continuum we are concerned with novelty and value that are defined and understood by individuals, or individuals and their immediate contacts – like family, teachers and peers. The appropriate concepts of novelty in this context is the quality of being different, new, and unusual it is not the quality of being unique or original. As Carly Lassig (5) discovered in her grounded theory study of the creativity of adolescents, novelty is about behaving, performing and producing outside what is the accepted norm.

As we move along the continuum into the realm of expertise, for example in a work domain, novelty is often seen in the context of product innovation – the production of useful products that are, in some way, different to what existed before. Mostly these are incremental changes to things that already exists but sometimes they are original to a market. But novelty in the domain of expertise is also relevant to the production of new practices, performances, processes – for example bringing about change in an organisation. Again there are going to instances of true originality that are recognised in an organisation, environment or domain. The most creative novel acts (Big-c) result in changes that affect one or more cultural domains and they are widely recognised for their originality.

Using this sort of reasoning I believe, we can make better sense of creativity as a phenomenon by embracing this continuum of possibility. I also believe that novelty (in some form) and new value are part and parcel of the phenomenon of creativity but its presence is the result of individuals and groups of individuals interacting with their environment ie its an interactional and ecological phenomenon so one might argue these are equally important ideas to embrace in any concept of creativity.

Sources
1 Jackson, N.J. and Lassig, C. (2020) Exploring and Extending the 4C Model of Creativity: Recognising the value of an ed-c contextual domain. Creative Academic Magazine CAM15 https://www.creativeacademic.uk/magazine.html
2 Kaufman, J and Behgetto R (2009) Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity Review of General Psychology Vol. 13, No. 1, 1–12
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/.../228345133_Beyond_Big_and...
3) Rogers, C. (1954). Toward a Theory of Creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249-260.
4) Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins.
5) Lassig, C. J. (2012) Perceiving and pursuing novelty : a grounded theory of adolescent creativity. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/50661/
Picture
0 Comments

Creativity and the Tussle Between Humanist & Systems Thinking

4/11/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
I believe that trying to understand creativity involves navigating and integrating two complementary philosphies, concepts and definitions. Whenever we have a discussion about creativity on the #creativeHE forum  www.facebook.com/groups/creativeHE there is always a tussle between humanistic individualistic views of creativity and systemic / cultural views. Such discussions often pitch little-c against Big-c and pro-c (2). The two different philosophies on the phenomenon of creativity and the way we perceive and define it are captured in the thinking and writings of 1) Carl Rogers who approaches creativity from a humanist, person- and individual- centred therapeutic perspective and 3)  Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi who approaches creativity through the lens of individuals acting in systems and cultures. Both of these writers recognise the importance of environment in shaping the creative responses of individuals.

Kristen Bettencourt (4) neatly captures the philosophies of these thinkers and these notes are taken from her excellent article.
​
Rogers (2) defines the creative process as “the emergence in action of a novel relational product, growing out of the uniqueness of the individual on the one hand, and the materials, events, people, or circumstances on the other” (p. 251). Rogers points out, “the very essence of the creative is its novelty, and hence we have no standard by which to judge it” (p.252). Rogers leaves room in the definition of creativity for the creator to define whether the expression is indeed novel, going as far to say that anyone other than the creator cannot be a valid or accurate judge. This is in contrast to Csikszentmihalyi’s emphasis on the creative expression serving to transform the culture or the domain.

Csikszentmihalyi (3) “creativity does not happen inside people’s heads, but in the interaction between a person’s thoughts and sociocultural context. It is a systemic rather than individual phenomenon” (3 p.23). Csikszentmihalyi tells us “To be human means to be creative,” he defines creativity as “to bring into existence something genuinely new that is valued enough to be added to the culture” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p.25), and “any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a new one” (3 p.28). The word “creative” is given to expression seen as novel in relation to the surrounding culture, domain, or community, and that is novel enough to create change within that culture, domain, or community.


It seems to me we have to accept both of these ways of thinking about creativity and work with both constructs when trying to make sense of it. In other words we have to be able to accommodate both Rogerian and Csikszentmihalyian philosophies into our sense making in the manner crudely depicted in the 5C model of creativity below (5) which builds on and extends the well known 4C model (1).

​ I would like to think that we can make the case 
that education is the key environment for harnessing both philosophical positions and for learning about and preparing for creativity in a disciplinary and work domains in a complex social/cultural world. I like Carly Lassig’s Grounded Theory of Adolescent Creativity which comprises the core category, “Perceiving and Pursuing Novelty: Not the Norm. This core category explains how creativity involved adolescents perceiving stimuli and experiences differently, approaching tasks or life unconventionally, and pursuing novel ideas to create outcomes that are not the norm when compared with outcomes achieved by their peers.” (6) Carly identified three ways in which adolescents experienced creativity - creative self-expression and creativity in the service of tasks and boundary pushing. These constructs provide further evidence that these two philosophical positions are in play in the domain of educational practice. 
  I t
Here is someone who  is very successful at integrating these two perspectives in his own practice.

​ SOURCES
  1. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
  2. Rogers, C. (1954). Toward a Theory of Creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249-260
  3. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins
  4. Bettencourt, K (2014)   Rogers and Csikszentmihalyi on Creativity The Person Centered Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1-2, 2014 https://www.adpca.org/system/files/documents/journal/Bettencourt,%20Kristen%20(2014)%20-%20Rogers%20and%20Csikszentmihalyi%20on%20Creativity.pdf
  5. Jackson N J & Lassig C (2020) Exploring and Extending the 4C Model of Creativity: Recognising the value of an ed-c contextual-cultural domain Creative Academic Magazine #15 p 47-63 Available at: https://www.creativeacademic.uk/magazine.html
  6. Lassig, C. J. (2012) Perceiving and pursuing novelty : a grounded theory of adolescent creativity. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/50661/
0 Comments
     Creative Academic 
    #creativeHE

    this blog relates to my work for Creative Academic & contains insights gained from participating in ​the #creativeHE conversational space
    CREATIVE ACADEMIC WEBSITE
     #creativeHE
     FACEBOOK FORUM

    Author

    I am thankful for all the opportunities I  have to use my creativity and experience the creativity of others

    Archives

    November 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    July 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015

    Categories

    All
    Affordance
    Visual Thinking

    RSS Feed