Creativity Literature

More literature surveying.

I’ve started to pull together a spreadsheet of what I’ve read/want to read. I’m working my way through it, thinking about how it all fits together, what of it applies to my work, and what I want to move forward with.

I’ll continue to edit this post (and the spreadsheet) as I continue to read.

Interesting Reads

Ben Shniderman, 2009, Creativity Support Tools: A Grand Challenge for HCI Researchers: Probably a better summary than what I pulled together last post about the theory of creativity, design principles, and next-steps. A summary of recent gatherings on creativity support tools

Brenda Massetti, 1996, An Empirical Examination of Creativity Support Systems on Idea Generation: A painstakingly detailed examination of non-significant results of a study using creativity support tools. LOTS of great citation resources. Most interesting to me to theorize about why it failed…
Was the software (and thus domain) too general (broad ‘idea formation’)?Was the domain not open-ended enough, or possibly too political (solving the homeless problem)?
Were the experts/domain a weird fit (an human rights attorney, a community council president with a masters in public administration)?
Was the judging metric too harsh or polarized (novelty & value)?
Could a proposal made by novices to seasoned veterans be both highly novel and valuable in such a limited domain of feasibility?

Mark A. Runco & Garrett J. Jaeger, 2012, The Standard Definition of Creativity: A tiny rant about the history of our “standard definition” including validity(/effectiveness/usefulness/fit/appropriateness/utility/worthwhile/practical) and novelty(/originality/uniqueness/compelling). “Stein (1953) was the first to offer the standard definition in an entirely unambiguous fashion, and unlike his predecessors, he was without a doubt talking about creativity per se.”

Interesting Concepts

A “creativity inventory” (from Hellriegel and Solcum, 1991) assesses an individual’s perceived self-confidence, need for individuality, abstract critical thinking ability, analysis capability, desire for task achievement, and degree of environmental control. These have been consistently cited as characteristics of a creative person (Amabile and Tighe, 1993; Barron and Harrington, 1981; Tardif and Sternberg, 1988; Torrance, 1988)
Later in the article, it’s said: “the inventories did not directly account for a subject’s ability to generate ideas” [from Massetti, 1996]

Idea Fluency (high/low): “characterized as a creative ability that remains relatively constant over time (Guilford, 1950; Torrance, 1988; and Wallach, 1983)… Subjects were placed into the high-fluency category if they generated more than the mean number of responses (i.e., four or more) and into the low-fluency category if they generated three or fewer responses.” [from Massetti, 1996]

Genex: “A four-phase framework for generating excellence.” I would characterize it as a kind of creative agile idea development approach (meant to be highly fluid and iterative). “The name genex … was chosen to echo Vannevar Bush’s memex (memory extender)”. The four phases include:
Collect: learn from previous works stored in digital libraries, the web, etc. Visualize data and processes
Relate: consult with peers and mentors at early, middle, and late stages.
Create: explore, compose, evaluate possible solutions. Think with free associations, explore what if solutions and tools, compose artifacts and performances, and review/replay session histories (or should that be counted as collecting?)
Donate: disseminate the results and contribute to the digital libraries
[from Shneiderman 1999]

Interesting Quotes

“Researchers will study wikipedia.org to understand its remarkable success in bringing together hundreds of thousands of editors and writers to create a compelling resource. Similarly open source software communities, such as Linux… give an indication of much more ambitious collaborations… Understanding the determinants of success will be central. How important is lowering/raising barriers to entry, providing/limiting a hierarchy of administrators, or stability/change in content and interface? Other questions include the impact of rewarding active contributors, recognizing quality, and preventing malicious attacks?” (emphasis added) Ben Shniderman, 2009, Creativity Support Tools: A Grand Challenge for HCI Researchers

 

Advertisements

About robbierabbit

As of the making of this account, a 1st year phd student in computer science with a focus in computer games and intelligent agents.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s