New Horizons in Creativity 168507751X, 9781685077518

Citation preview

Expressive Arts Therapies

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Expressive Arts Therapies Arts Therapy in a Changing World: Creative Interdisciplinary Concepts and Methods for Group and Individual Development Ronen Berger, Ph.D. (Author) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-53619-631-3 (Hardcover) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-53619-727-3 (eBook) Creativity in Occupational Therapy: Person, Process, Product Alenka Oven, PhD (Editor) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53617-346-8 (Hardcover) 2020. ISBN: 978-1-53617-347-5 (eBook) Understanding Creativity: Past, Present and Future Perspectives Roger L. Cuadra (Editor) 2019. ISBN: 978-1-53616-052-9 (Softcover) 2019. ISBN: 978-1-53616-053-6 (eBook) Transformative Words: Writing Otherness and Identities Juhani Ihanus, Ph.D. (Editor) 2019. ISBN: 978-1-53614-965-4 (Hardcover) 2019. ISBN: 978-1-53614-966-1 (eBook)

More information about this series can be found at https://novapublishers.com/product-category/series/expressive-arts-therapies/

Shulamith Kreitler Editor

New Horizons in Creativity

Copyright © 2022 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. https://doi.org/10.52305/PHYP7252 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN. For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact: Copyright Clearance Center Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: [email protected].

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN: H%RRN

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Contents

Foreword

.......................................................................................... vii Margareta Dinca

Preface

......................................................................................... xiii Shulamith Kreitler

Chapter 1

Frontiers of Creativity Research ......................................1 Mark Runco

Chapter 2

Creativity in Organizations ............................................19 Eva Sollárová

Chapter 3

The Innovator’s Mind: Illuminating a Mental Hologram of Reality ...........................................41 Julia Skobeleva

Chapter 4

Creativity in Diplomacy: The Case of the Global Diplomacy Lab ....................................................65 Eirliani Abdul Rahman

Chapter 5

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding: The Soundscape of Agios Lavrentios, Greece ................................................91 Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner

Chapter 6

Creative Ecology: Innovation and Creativity Driven Solutions for Sustainability ..............................111 Ulas Akkucuk

Chapter 7

Creative Intuition in the Practice of Medicine: The Importance of Tolerating Uncertainty .................129 Katalin Varga and Gábor Ruzsa

vi

Contents

Chapter 8

Creativity: Constructivist, Psychodynamic and Mindfulness Perspectives.......................................151 Michael DelMonte

Chapter 9

Technological Creativity: Incorporation of Computational Thinking in Nursing Education .........183 Ilana Dubovi

Chapter 10

Scientific Creativity and Education .............................199 Jacques Grégoire

Chapter 11

Problem Solving and Creativity ...................................227 Ken Gilhooly

Chapter 12

Humor and Creativity ...................................................257 Arie Sover

Chapter 13

Creativity and Meaning ................................................283 Shulamith Kreitler

About the Authors ....................................................................................311 Index

.........................................................................................321

Foreword

Creativity is the ability to produce original and unusual ideas or to do something new or imaginative. Creativity studies return to science after a period of decline. The 1950s were characterized by a marked interest in creativity beginning with the analysis of the correlations between intelligence and creativity (Barron, 1968; Guilford, 1956; Wallach & Kogan, 1965). The correlations between these concepts were found to be low, which justifies their treatment as distinct. A very popular model is the one proposed by Paul Torrance (1966), namely the “threshold hypothesis”, which claims that there is a low positive correlation between low scores of creativity and intelligence. In the ensuing period other important theories were developed. However, in the 80’s the interest for this concept declined. A renewed awakening of interest started when Teresa Amabile (1996) defined creativity as “the production of new and useful ideas in any field” of human activity, from science to the arts, in education, in business, or everyday life. The conceptualization of Teresa Amabile can be considered a kind of preamble for this volume, in which the authors aim to present an eclectic vision of their field, theories, research, and applications. The information is useful for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate courses in psychology, medicine, arts, nursing, sociology, and diplomacy. The volume proposes two main directions of analysis of creativity  one based on history, theories, and methods in the field, and the other, empirical studies. Science is inherently creative. Niels Bohr (1885-1962) expressed in a famous quote the axiom “No, no, you don’t think, you’re just logical” (Frisch, 1980, p. 95). This means that rigorous reasoning is not enough for producing relevant and new ideas. The analysis of the history of scientific theories discusses the frontiers of creativity research. As can be seen from the analysis of the presented materials, the limits as well as the boundaries of research in creativity are constantly expanding. Thus, in contemporary research, we find two frequent themes or topics, namely, the study of creative potential and the identification of areas that require original solutions. The new fields, identified and studied empirically,

viii

Margareta Dinca

have their origin in the moral and political problems that contemporary society faces. Constructivist (Kelly, 1955) and psychodynamic (Freud 1930; Lacan, 1966) approaches are arguments in support of the hypothesis that creativity is expressed polymorphically at different levels of cognitive awareness along a continuum from concrete to abstract. It is concluded that awareness-raising practices involving creativity, such as mindfulness and insight psychotherapy, can reduce somatizations (see Chapter 8, “Creativity: Constructivism, Psychodynamic and Mindfulness Perspectives”). We find an interesting exposition on the relationships between problem solving and creativity. The definitions of “problem” and “creative” are analysed and it is argued that all problems are at least minimally creative in that they require a new and intentional solution. On the other hand, all creative activities are forms of problem-solving. (see Chapter 11, “Problem Solving and Creativity”). The analysis of the research on the creative approach of recognized innovators allowed the description of a common thinking pattern. Problemsolving involves using a 3-D perspective, visualizing fragmented knowledge about a problem as a whole. This cognitive-affective approach is called by the author “illuminating a mental hologram of reality” (see Chapter 3, “The Innovator’s Mind: Illuminating a Mental Hologram of Reality”). The relationships between creativity and meaning are discussed in the same direction. “Meaning is a set of contents and processes involved in any process, action and output of individuals” (Kreitler). Creativity and meaning have a major common feature, namely, they are present everywhere, in many fields and activities, in everyday life, in technology and in academia. The Kreitler Meaning System describes meaning in terms of content and cognitive processes. The chapter focuses, on the one hand, on the motivational elements - the motivation of creative people in general and artists in a targeted way, but also on the cognitive processes that characterize the performance of the creative act itself. And, on the other hand, it addresses the operational aspects of creativity - the motivation of the art spectator and the processes involved in the elaboration and experiencing of art, which is related to creativity (see Chapter 13, “Creativity and Meaning”). It is very interesting to approach the relationship between humor and creativity. The author wonders if there is a link between humor and creativity. The answer is of course positive because individuals have the following two traits: they can laugh at the humorous situations that others create and can produce such situations. The chapter analyses the relationship between

Foreword

ix

creativity, humor and intelligence, focusing on the origins of humor, emphasizing the humor-creativity relationship as defense mechanisms and on the cognitive processes that are created during the understanding or sometimes decipherment of a situation that involves humor (see Chapter 12, “Humor and Creativity”). The chapter on creativity in organizations dwells on the importance of creativity in regard to organization. The argument is based on different perspectives and theories, such as those presented by Mihály Csikszentmihalyi, Robert Sternberg and Todd Lubart, Teresa Amabile, and Carl R. Rogers. It is a particularly comprehensive chapter that deals with the variety of perspectives that have been applied in regard to organizations, exemplifying them and integrating them. This chapter can be considered as a bridge between the more theoretical and more empirical approaches presented in this volume (see Chapter 2, “Creativity in Organizations”). Creative ecology can be defined as “an approach to ecology that investigates environmental solutions in terms of creativity and innovation.” The chapter analyses the current state of knowledge in this domain and provides a general framework for future research. It presents examples of issues and creative solutions to major environmental problems, such as energy use and waste reduction (see Chapter 6, “Creative Ecology”). Creative landscaping, or rather soundscaping, is dealt with in an intriguing chapter which describes how creativity and the senses are combined in a framework of perceiving landscape as a means for transforming the external structuring of a specific location and its internal experiencing by the inhabitants. The resulting form may serve as a paradigm in regard to creative and recreative styles (see Chapter 5, “Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding: the Soundscape of Agios Lavrentios, Greece”). The chapters presented in the volume cover a social reality that cannot be denied: the world is changing rapidly. A creative approach is needed to solve the problems that countries face. Since creativity is not usually associated with diplomacy, the chapter deals with the relationship between the creativity and diplomacy, arguing in favour of inserting creativity in politics and diplomacy. Actually, creativity is necessary in politics and diplomacy at least as much as it is necessary in science. The proposed approach is exemplified by the activity developed by GDL2015 (Global Diplomacy Lab., Founded in 2015). Diplomacy can take the step from relatively neutral collaborations, following well-defined protocols to an approach in which information is collected through multiple channels, thus being able to profile both innovations in

x

Margareta Dinca

diplomacy and diplomacy in innovation (see Chapter 4, “Creativity in Diplomacy: The Case of Global Diplomacy Lab”). An important discussion refers to the relationship and involvement of creativity in education, as a necessity in the development of science. Creativity in science can be stimulated by appropriate educational models, in which the involved obstacles can be minimized. The discussed obstacles include cognitive dissonance, knowledge resulting from learned experiences and patterns as well as epistemological obstacles originating in language (see Chapter 10, “Scientific Creativity and Education”). Computational Thinking (CT) is a critical competence and a basic skill in the field of nurse education. Classically the education of nurses referred to the functions and duties in the physical care of patients, a combination of different disciplines that accelerate healing and help maintain it. The study based on empirical research demonstrates that by using information available online, professional practice becomes more effective because it allows understanding the medical phenomenon (see Chapter 9, “Technological Creativity: Incorporation of Computational Thinking in Nursing Education”). Medical fields do not traditionally trust the use of intuition and creativity. Analytical thinking and strict adherence to guidelines are often considered the only acceptable behaviors. The present chapter discusses not only the theoretical arguments but also the results of an empirical study that illustrates the importance of creativity in clinical decision-making, allowing space for the important skill of intuition (see Chapter 7, “Creative Intuition in the Practice of Medicine – On the Importance of Tolerating Uncertainty”). There is in the book a basic chapter which describes the major developments of creativity in terms of theoretical approaches, domains and methodologies (see Chapter 1, “Frontiers of the Creativity Research”). This chapter is complemented by the Preface which provides insight into the structure of the domain of creativity in the present and future (see Preface: “Creativity Past and Future”). The Preface and the first chapter contribute each in its own way the outlines of a framework for the book as a whole. This book presents a series of directions and solutions to the acute problems of today’s world. We can conclude that creative intuition is indispensable in contemporary culture that faces complex and uncertain situations so that a creative approach becomes necessary. The present volume is an important contribution to promoting the development of creativity as a basic discipline in psychology both in the theoretical and applied senses.

Foreword

xi

References Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Barron, F. (1968) Creativity and Personal Freedom. New York: Van Nostrand. Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its Discontents. London, UK: Hogarth. Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Lacan, J. (1966). Ecrits. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Torrance, E. P. (1966) Torrance tests of Creative Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personal Press. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965) Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Margareta Dinca, PhD Titu Maiorescu University 187, Calea Vacaresti, Bucharest, Romania 15 November, 2021

Preface

Creativity Past and Future In the good old days when everything had its place and role in a world that seemed – at least in retrospect – to be ordered and simple, there was no problem about creativity. It was clearly identified as a characteristic of art and science, in the highest peaks of human achievement. Since only the minority of people were occupied by the professions clearly tagged as ‘art’ and ‘science’, creativity was safely tucked in the loft as it were, radiating its benefits down to daily life. We knew where to look for it and we were safe in our knowledge about its value and function. Well, there was some kind of a problem in the past history of creativity when the issue of the relations between creativity and intelligence cropped up at some point but the outcome of the resulting theorizing and experiments was highly favorable for creativity: it turned out to be separate from intelligence occupying a distinct domain (Cramond, Kim, & VanTassel-Baska, 2010; Guilford, 1950). Thus, it maintained its unique position, in the lofty peaks of the highest human achievements. Slowly almost imperceptibly things started to change. Or at least threatened to change. There were potentially threatening observations about creativity in groups of people that have not been previously considered or studied as creative. Major among these were young children (e.g., Aljarrah, 2017), persons diagnosed with dyslexia (Cancer & Antonietti, 2020), autism (Fitzgerald, 2003) and last but not least persons diagnosed as mentally challenged (Buck, 1991). Slowly the awareness sank in of the fact that creativity is not only the property of the elite cultural endowed minority. In principle this was an awareness difficult to form and accept in a culture that doubted even the creative potential of women in the past (Reis, 2002) and to some extent even at present (e.g., Proudfoot, Kay, & Koval, 2015). An even more serious realization came with the evidence that actually not only artists are creative but the regular simple spectator of art too, and what is bewildering

xiv

Shulamith Kreitler

is that some artists claimed that the creativity of the spectator is a necessary component for the full unfolding of the creative art object (Sartre, 1949). The next unavoidable step came with the realization that creativity is not limited to art and science. Rather, it can be detected in a great many different domains, ranging from education to technology and cyber, spanning health, organizations, well-being, design, finances, banking, tourism, politics, national defense, family life, social relations, economy, sport, not skipping domains such as crime that do not enjoy the full ethical support but shows evidence of moral or rather immoral creativity (Cropley, Kaufman, & Cropley, 2008). Even a cursory review reveals that there is barely any domain in regard to which creativity has not been mentioned and in case it has not been mentioned up to now, that it could be mentioned any time. Actually, as the barriers have been lifted, there is no reason to expect any limitation on the spreading of the involvement of creativity in eve new domains. The involvement of creativity in a domain is not limited merely to the highest organizational levels but seeps down to the lowest day-to-day operational levels, as in the case of education where the effects of creativity are potent not only in regard to structuring and managing the curriculum but also in regard to teaching and learning in the classroom. The spreading affiliations of creativity with an increasing range of domains of human activity is based on the double conviction that, on the one hand, creativity is useful or could be useful and, on the other hand, that creativity is necessary. Another result of these changes - that should not be surprising – is that we encounter creativity at every corner, in every domain, in multiform manifestations. The growing conviction of the usefulness of creativity is reflected also in the revision of the definition of creativity to include again usefulness – named sometimes relevance or practicality or value – which has had a precarious status in the definition of creativity over the years, next to novelty. After some time, a reviewed consideration of the definition of creativity led to the reinstatement of usefulness as an indispensable component of the definition (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). The increased occupation with creativity and its training led to the realization that creativity exists in every person. Even though attaining the peaks of creativity is reserved for a blessed minority, creativity as such is a universal tendency just as thinking, feeling and behaving are. Many individuals have become aware of this potentiality and an increasing number of individuals have become actively engaged in creative enterprises, including even the arts, such as painting, creating artistic objects, singing and making

Preface

xv

music. Eventually, applying creativity has become evident and expected in regard to everyday actions and objectives. The conviction concerning the essentially unlimited applicability of creativity has come hand in hand with the assumption accompanied by increasing evidence that creativity can be trained. That is, if it necessary to apply creativity in some new domain which has not been touched by creativity up to now, it is possible to train individuals for this task. And not only for a specific task, but actually for all tasks and domains. The reason is that creativity is trainable. The methodology and experimentations concerning interventions for enhancing creativity are growing impressively (e.g., Birdie, 2016). In view of the fact that creativity came to be viewed as something that many if not all people possess, the training and promotion of creativity also underwent a dramatic change. It is no longer viewed merely as a skill that has to be mastered but as a change involving many of one’s tendencies and abilities – cognition, emotion, personality, behavior- and also the environment in which one functions. Promoting creativity turns out to require changes in various psychological functions far beyond cognition (Kreitler, 2020a). The conception that creativity is a multidimensional complex requires also a change in the overall conception of creativity – its nature and functioning. From a specific skill or gift it turns into a system of multiple processes and functions, that may occupy a central role and location in the cognitive system and beyond it – in the total functioning of the human being. A new psychology of creativity should be envisaged and constructed. All these changes did not happen in the void but rather in the midst of major cultural and life transformations. One change is evident in the rise of individualism, which brought about an emphasis on expressing one’s unique individuality, as manifested in the flourishing of selfies, personal blogs, and self-expressions in the social media. A second change is grounded in the emergence of new possibilities in old domains due to technological advances, involving also the blurring of boundaries between domains, e.g., personal publications of one’s literary products, creating films on one’s own, and creating new forms of art, for example by combining odors with tones. A third change is probably the most important one. It consists in the growing need for creativity. This need is grounded in a reality of a world in which many of the old frameworks and organizations are showing increasing signs of need for change, both because they are old fashioned and inadequate in their rhythm, nature, structure and manner of operation for satisfying the new social and

xvi

Shulamith Kreitler

personal needs, as well as because we know that we could do better. As if reminders for change were necessary, the increased awareness of the climate change and the pandemic appeared on the scene in a manner that could barely be overlooked. There is a growing awareness that we are on our planet and in the world at large actually in the midst of a revolutionary state of culture, health, politics and ecology and if something will save us – it is creativity. Fortunately, the situation could have been much more dangerous and menacing if it were not that creativity is there, as it has never been before. The future of creativity is not going to be like its past, neither will the future of humankind be the same. It will soar to unexpected heights when creativity is recognized as the most important and valuable resource of humanity.

Some Notes About this Book This book is the result of the considerations outlined above about the state of creativity and its status and role in the world at present. The basic tenet is that creativity is an important human resource, maybe even one of the most impotent ones, with a high priority in the present situation that is marked by the occurrence and necessity of chances in most domains of life and social functioning. The major implications of this approach are that it is necessary to focus on creativity in two major respects: on the internal dynamics - processes constituting its nature and functioning in the internal world of the creative individual and on the manifestations of creativity in the environment, that is, in the external world, examining and studying the manner in which it functions and contributes in an expanding range of domains. These two viewpoints form the major anchors of the series on creativity in which the present book New Horizons of Creativity is the second volume. The first volume was entitled New Frontiers in Creativity (Kreitler, 2020b) and dealt both with the processes defining the nature of creativity and its functioning (neuropsychological, meta-creative tactics, processes regulating the spread of social innovations) and the manifestations of creativity in different populations (psychiatric, dyslexia, the elderly) and domains (Painting, psychotherapy, engineering, architecture, sport, nature (evolution). The present book is the second in the series on creativity and carries forward both of the major anchors of creativity research. Some of the chapters are devoted to expanding the study of creativity from the point of view of the creative individual. Other chapters are devoted to expanding the study of

Preface

xvii

creativity from the point of view of the domains in which creativity functions. In both respects the chapters present innovative approaches and findings. The format and content of the volume express the conviction and hope that a renewed theory of creativity will come about from the increased application of creativity in a variety of new domains. The horizontal expansion of applications will be followed and will bring about an in-depth development of the science of creativity in theory and in practice. The broad application of creativity will enhance the conviction that there are not many kinds of creativity as has been suggested (Plucker & Zabelina, 2008) but quite on the contrary – that there is only one kind that is stable, comprehensive and sufficiently elaborated to serve as the one major kind of creativity. The implication is that the internal and external expansions are not separate but form a complex of interdependence. The internal expansion needs applications and experimentation in specific domains in which creativity can be applied thus injecting creativity into old and new domains; and on the other hand – pushing forward and applying creativity in new domains cannot be done by relying only on the familiar processes but needs the discovery and experimentation with new processes. The internal and external expansion converge in functional interdependence – writing the new chapter in the history of creativity - creating the new format of creativity with its innovative structure, function and power.

References Aljarrah, A. (2017). Play as a manifestation of children’s imagination and creativity. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(1), 23-36. Birdi, K. (2016). Creativity training. In H. Shipton, P. Budhwar, P. Sparrow & A. Brown (Eds.) Human resource management, innovation and performance (pp. 298-312). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Buck, L. A. (1991). Creativity in the retarded. Empirical Studies in the Arts, 9(1), 75-95 Cancer, A., & Antonietti, A. (2000). Creativity and dyslexia: Theoretical insights and empirical evidence supporting a possible link. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), New frontiers in creativity (pp. 125-148). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Cramond, B., Kim, K. H., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The relationship between creativity and intelligence. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 395–412). Cambridge University Press. Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent creativity: A functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105-115.

xviii

Shulamith Kreitler

Fitzgerald, M. (2003). Autism and creativity: Is there a link between autism in men and exceptional ability? London, UK: Taylor and Francis. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Kreitler, S. (2020a). The many faces of creativity. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), New frontiers in creativity (pp. 3-40). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Kreitler, S. (Ed.), (2020b) New frontiers in creativity. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers Plucker, J., & Zabelina, D. (2008). Creativity and interdisciplinarity: One creativity or many creativities? ZDM: the international journal on mathematics education, 41(1), 5-11. Proudfoot, D., Kay, A.C., & Koval, C. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creati`ve thinking. Psychological Science, 26(11),1751-1761 Reis, S. M. (2002). Toward a theory of creativity in diverse creative women. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3-4), 305-316. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96. Sartre, P. (1949). What is literature? New York: Philosophical Library. [originally published in French, 1948, Situation II, Gallimard Paris. Translated by B. Frechtman].

Chapter 1

Frontiers of Creativity Research Mark Runco* Creativity Research & Programming, Southern Oregon University, OR, USA

Abstract This chapter explores two frontiers of contemporary creativity research. One involves a shift back to the appreciation for creative potential. The second frontier involves a broadening of the creativity research. Each of these frontiers is explored in this chapter. This requires a detailed discussion of the domain specificity of creativity, as well as an examination of new domains which have been recently suggested. This chapter also contains a thorough analysis of the concept of creative potential. Difficulties in studying potential are noted. The value of creative potential is emphasized, even if there are methodological challenges.

Keywords: benevolent creativity, malevolent creativity, dark side of creativity, technological creativity, politics

Introduction This chapter explores two frontiers of contemporary creativity research. One involves a shift back to the appreciation for creative potential. As the phrase “back to an appreciation” implies, views of creative potential have not changed in a smooth, linear way. Creative potential was the topic of research *

Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected].

In: New Horizons in Creativity Editor: Shulamith Kreitler ISBN: 978-1-68507-751-8 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

2

Mark Runco

early on, and then it was relegated, and now in the past 5-10 years, there is a renewed interest. There is still too little on the topic, but it may be that it is again becoming a fashionable topic. What research has been done on creative potential is reviewed below and the claim--that potential was better appreciated when the field was just forming, and then relegated, but is now again receiving some attention--is defended. As such this chapter reviews some older work, as well as recent research, and it explains why for a time creative potential was relegated. The second frontier involves a broadening of the creativity research. Domains of creativity have been acknowledged since the 1930s (Patrick, 1935, 1937, 1938) but recently several new domains have been identified and are being studied empirically. Not surprisingly, there is quite a bit of research on creativity in the technological domain, for example, but there is also research on creativity in the moral domain. Oddly, much of the research on creativity in the moral domain is focused on the dark side rather than the benevolent expressions of creativity. Reasons for this are offered herein. There is some progress on both fronts, both malevolence and benevolence, which will be summarized. There is a further broadening of creativity research into the political domain. This is quite fortunate because, at least the United States, there are a number of significant political issues facing society, and creative solutions are needed. This chapter reviews theory and research that exemplify these two frontiers (the recognition of creative potential and new technological, moral, and political domains for creative work) but it also speculates on an intersection between the two frontiers. Intersections are especially obvious for the moral and political domains. We begin with the early work on creative potential.

Creative Potential Many early empirical studies of creativity were focused on creative potential, but they rarely referred to it. They discussed creativity in general terms but what they were measuring was in fact often creative potential. One exception is MacKinnon’s (1965) “Personality and the Realization of Creative Potential.” This was a Presidential Address to the 1964 Conference of the Western Psychological Association and then published shortly after in the American Psychologist. As the title implies MacKinnon focused on personality as sometimes providing the potential for creative behavior. This is

Frontiers of Creativity Research

3

exactly right: personality does not guarantee of behavior but is one in-dicator of potential. Many authors have described the core characteristics, or personality traits, of creative behavior. These usually include openness, autonomy, flexibility, and intrinsic motivation. MacKinnon pointed to ego strength as a key trait and as playing a significant role in creative behavior. He cited the personality theories of Kubie (1953), well known for the idea that creativity reflects a “regression in the service of the ego,” and Rank (1950), who also went into detail about personality and creativity (Helson, 2000). I have recently pointed to ego strength when discussing education that supports creativity, the idea being that children are born with creative tendencies but then socialization pressures eventually inhibit their spontaneity. One result is the fourth-grade slump (Runco & Charles, 1997; Torrance, 1968). In fact, there are several things that occur at about the same age, when children enter a conventional stage and have difficulty being unconventional. This means that their art, their language, and their thinking all suffer, at least in the sense that they display less originality. Children with strong ego strength will be able to resist pressures to conform and are thus likely to maintain a high level of creative behavior. Of course, it is good that children are socialized! This means that conventional thinking is not all bad. The most reasonable goal for education is to support an adaptive balance such that students will understand what is socially appropriate and fitting but, at the same time, maintain the capacity for creative thinking when that is appropriate. Just as we do not want children to be conformists all of the time, so too do we want to avoid having wildly indiscriminant rebels. For this reason, in addition to ego-strength, discretion is an important target for education (Runco, 1996; 2003). It will allow students to know when to be creative and when to conform. MacKinnon (1965) saw personality as an important part of creative potential. This same thinking contributed to the revamping of the famous 4P framework for the study of creativity. In its original conception Rhodes (1962) described four strands of creativity research: creative personality, creative product, creative process, and creative press (or place). Simonton (1988) argued that another approach to the study of creativity involves persuasion, the rationale being that creative people and creative ideas change the way that others think. I added a 6th P to the framework for creative potential but I also created a hierarchy (Runco, 2007). This has creative potential and creative performance on the highest level of the hierarchy with all other Ps subsumed under one or the other of those two general categories. Creative potential includes personality, process, and place because each of those offers

4

Mark Runco

something to creative potential but none of them guarantees actual creative behavior. Creative products, creative achievement, and creative persuasion are all under the other general category, creative performance, because each of them does assume actual manifest behavior or accomplishment. I offer no explanation for why there are so many Ps involved in creativity or at least in theories of creativity. MacKinnon’s (1965) research exemplifies the early personality research on creativity, but he was not alone. He worked with the IPAR group in Berkeley and much of their program on creativity involved the assessment of personality. Indeed, IPAR was the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, and a number of its members were interested in creativity. Barron’s (1995) book No Rootless Flower details much of his work with IPAR. An example of Barron’s (1955) early empirical efforts described “the disposition towards originality.” The word “disposition” is apt because, like personality, it too implies that there is a tendency but no guarantee. Helson (1999) presented a nice review of the IPAR research on creativity. She herself conducted a longitudinal investigation which she summarized as follows: The Mills Longitudinal Study, covering 30 years in the lives of approximately 100 women from the senior year of college to their early 50s, was begun as an investigation of creativity in women. A central finding is that varied measures of creative potential assessed openness and unconventionality, manifested in both positive and negative ways, whereas creative productivity was associated with these traits, along with strong creative motivation and resilience. Creative potential was actualized in some women in self-discovery through relationships rather than in careers. Creative traits showed impressive consistency over time, but the creative vitality of individuals fluctuated considerably with major changes in life situation. Creative productivity showed more relation to psychosocial development than did measures of creative potential. (Helson, 1999b, p. 89)

Helson was especially interested in how creative potential unfolded over time. Her finding of creative self-discovery and creativity in relationships is enormously important and fits well with theories of personal creativity and everyday creativity (Richards, 2007; Runco, 2007). Helson’s statement about “creative potential being actualized” is telling because it is so close to the view that self-actualization is inextricable from creativity (Rogers, 1970). Indeed, humanistic theories of creativity often point to self-actualization, and actualization is only possible if there is potential that can be fulfilled.

Frontiers of Creativity Research

5

Before exploring domain differences in depth there is one last thing to say about the IPAR research. Much of it assumed that the best way to study creativity was to examine unambiguous cases. This means looking at individuals who are doing high level work, in whatever field. The logic for relying on unambiguous cases is that there is certainty about the creativity. The individuals studied are chosen precisely because they have displayed creativity. They are famous for it. There is no need to infer creative potential when you study unambiguous cases, though of course one question that can be asked concerns how the potentials of those cases were fulfilled. I should say “how and why” because some of the explanation involves motivation (Barron, 1963; Runco, 1994). The group at IPAR was well aware of the role of intrinsic motivation in high level creative work. There is a definite drawback to research relying on unambiguous cases. What is uncovered may not apply to the creativity of everyone else. This means that little may be said about everyday creativity when the data are from unambiguous cases. Also, it may be that what was relevant when these individuals were doing their work may not be as relevant to today’s developing talents (Runco, 1993). This is essentially the same problem that plagues all longitudinal research. Causes and effects can be observed as they unfold over time, but at the end of the longitudinal period, things may have changed so what was important at baseline may not be important at follow up. That being said there are a number of very good longitudinal studies of creativity (Albert, 1983; Subotnik & Arnold, 1993). One way to look at these is that they identify factors which can then be examined experimentally. The IPAR group studied writers and architects, just to name two of the targeted domains. The latter were chosen in part because they rely on a collaboration of art and engineering (MacKinnon, 1964). Dudek and Hall (1990) summarized a longitudinal investigation of architects which began at IPAR: “One hundred and twenty-four American male architects representing three levels of eminence and creativity were studied by Donald W. MacKinnon and his collaborators in 1958-1960. The present report is based on a followup of 70 of the 83 (78%) surviving architects (mean age 71 years, with a range of 62-88). The architects were individually interviewed at their place of residence between 1983-1984 and received several of the same tests they had received 25 years before, including the Adjective Check List (ACL) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). The present study offered the architects a chance to look back at lifelong careers, and it allowed the researchers to establish that the distinct personality characteristics of the

6

Mark Runco three groups of architects remained remarkably stable, and were at least partially responsible for moderating longevity and achievement. Opportunities for full-time practice were radically different for the three groups after age 65. The interview data suggested that factors that are responsible for successful productivity in old age include: (a) commitment and drive; (b) overlearned skills; (c) aesthetic sensitivity; (d) ability to be a good salesman; and (e) ability to delegate responsibility. The continuing impressive creativity of the architects can be best explained by Simonton’s (1984) constant probability of success model.” (p. 213) The constant probability of success model predicts that each product of thought has the same likelihood of succeeding, so the more one produces, the more likely the person will discover creative things. The ability to be a good salesman is consistent with Gardner’s (1990) observation that self-promotion plays a role in creative achievement and fits with Kasof’s (1995) idea that creators should learn impression management skills (so they can impress audiences). I have criticized this view because time invested in impression management is time away from actual creative work. I have also argued that impression management and the like may be good for fame, but fame is not the same thing as creative talent. Too often fame and creativity are conflated (Runco, 2010).

Why is this the case? Answering this question and examining why creative talent and fame are so often conflated will help to explain why creative potential, studied in some of the creativity research 50-60 years ago, was then largely dismissed.

Ignoring Creative Potential Although Patrick (1935, 1937, 1938) and a few others were investigating creativity long ago, 50 years ago the majority of behavioral scientists believed that creativity was dependent on general intelligence, and many people felt that creativity could not be studied with objective methods. This was even apparent in the 1980s. In fact, this same thinking about creativity is still apparent in things like the art bias (Runco, 2004). This is the label given to the presumption that creativity is only expressed in the arts (also see Cropley, 2015; Smith, 2015). The arts do indeed convey creativity, but a person can be creative and not artistic. That is why the research on domains of creativity is so important. The art bias seems to be associated with an emphasis on aesthetics, another topic that is typically viewed as difficult to study with scientific methods.

Frontiers of Creativity Research

7

Creativity eventually gained respect, at least in the sense that its benefits became clearer, even outside of the arts. It was eventually tied to innovation, for example, and associated with problem solving effectiveness. More and more scientists started to investigate it, but they had to overcome the presumption that it could not be objectively studied. Guilford’s (1950) work offered one objective approach, and soon there were others. Eventually creativity became recognized as a legitimate scientific concern. The main reason creativity obtained achieved respectability was that the operational definition of creativity changed. Creativity research largely distanced itself from aesthetics and its role in a variety of domains was broadly appreciated. Most important was that the operational definition shifted away from things which were difficult to operationalize, such as potential, and they shifted towards things that were easy to objectively operationalize. This meant that more and more research focused on creative products and on unambiguously creative people. Creative products can be counted; in this sense they can be objectively studied. Creative people can also be objectively studied, at least if you assume that a consensus of judgments constitutes objectivity. This is the social view of creativity which is prevalent in the creativity research today. In social approaches to creativity social recognition is required before a person or product is labeled creative. Examples of the social approach are plentiful. One of the first was Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) systems theory. It describes how a creative idea or breakthrough begins with an individual but must also be recognized by others working in the same field. If the field recognizes the creativity of the idea or breakthrough, it eventually becomes a part of the domain itself. A creative idea in the sciences, for example, may eventually be found in textbooks being written and a part of the knowledge bases of experts in the field. If the creative idea does become a part of the domain, novices entering that field will learn about it, and the process may start again. The important thing here is that, for Csikszentmihalyi (1990), the original idea is not creative until the field and eventually the domain attribute creativity to it. Glaveanu (2020) and Kasof (1995) also require social attributions and judgments or else something is not creative. I have offered the alternative, namely the theory of personal creativity mentioned briefly above (Runco, 1995, 1996, 2003, 2020). It does not require any social attribution. Attributions are also unimportant in everyday creativity (Cropley, 2010; Richards, 2007). The theory of personal creativity does not entirely separate the creativity of the individual from impact within a field or domain. It posits that it all starts with the individual. It also posits that an

8

Mark Runco

individual can be creative even without social recognition. Hence the creativity is personal. That personal creativity may at some point change a field or domain and have significant social impact, but it does not require impact for creativity. What is most important for the present purposes is that the product and social views allowed creativity research to appear to be objective, and topics that were not indubitably objective, such as creative potential and personal creativity, were dismissed. They did not qualify as creative because there was no social recognition. Conceptions of creativity shifted such that social recognition became a requirement. This allowed the creativity research to increase its objectivity, or at least one kind of objectivity (i.e., that defined in terms of a consensus of opinion). The problem is that this went too far when it dismissed creative potential. The product view is the most objective in the sense that products can be counted, but there is still judgment (and thus subjectivity) involved in the selection of products. Which ones should be counted? The product view is also limited because products are outcomes and are influenced by things not inherent in the creative process, such as the availability of resources. In addition, when you study creative products, much can be said the product, but little is uncovered about the process that was involved in the creation of that product. In short, nothing is said about the mechanism that was used to actually bring something new and original into existence. Without a mechanism, there is no explanation, at least in the sense that explanations identify causes and effects. There is some indication that things are changing such that creative potential is again being recognized. My own work on potential has, for example, already been cited in this chapter (Runco, 1996, 2003, 2010, 2011). I have written about personal creativity as well, and it includes a proposal about a mechanism. I have also gone out of my way to convey the message that tests of creativity must be viewed as indicative of potential. There is no such thing as a creativity test because authentic creativity is not something that can be required of individuals. It is intrinsically motivated, spontaneous, and very different from what can be elicited by a test. That being said, there are tests that offer useful estimates of potential. This is precisely what is provided by divergent thinking tests (Acar & Runco, 2019; Guilford, 1968; Runco, 1991, 2013). Potential is also explicit in the EPoC test of Lubart, Zenasni, and Barbot (2013). Divergent thinking tests are estimates because they are not perfect tests. No test is perfect, which is why reliability and validity must be checked when

Frontiers of Creativity Research

9

using any test of creative potential. These determine just how good a test is (i.e., how far it is from perfect). Reliability is the opposite of measurement error. If a test was perfect, it would have reliabilities of 1.00. As it is a good test has reliablity of .80-.90. The idea that there is no such thing as a creativity test was defended above, the assumption being that creativity is something that occurs in the natural environment when an individual can spontaneously follow his or her intrinsic interest and think or behave in an original and effective matter. A test is a sample of behavior which does not allow much if any intrinsic motivation and spontaneity. Still, if the sample of behavior captured by the test is indicative of what the individual can possible do–which is one of the questions of test validation–we can view that test as an estimate of the potential for creativity. The point is that tests like divergent thinking and the EPoC are indicative of creative potential, and fortunately more and more people are interpreting them in this fashion rather than equating them with creativity per se. This is just one way that views of creativity are becoming broader such that they (again) value creative potential and do not all require socially recognized, creative achievement, and productivity. New domains are also being recognized. These too add breadth and detail to the study of creativity.

Broadening Conceptions of Creativity with New Domains The research by Patrick (1935, 1937, 1938), cited above, sampled artists, including poets, and scientists. The IPAR group often sampled writers and architects. Other domains have been recognized through the years in research with both adults (Gardner, 1990) and children (Baer, 1990; Runco, 1986). Sometimes there are empirical reasons for the delineation of domains, but sometimes not. The best supported domain theory is that of Gardner (1983). He originally proposed seven domains (verbal, mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal) and later added the naturalistic domain. Each domain was isolated by experimental and developmental evidence, as well as neuroanatomy. Several new domains have been proposed, and although they do not have the same evidentiary support as the eight proposed by Gardner (1983), there is very good reason to consider them. They may not have the same neuroanatomical basis as the domains identified by Gardner, but they do seem to represent areas in which creative work can be done. This is also one of the intersections mentioned in the introduction of this chapter. Simply put, it makes sense to be open to new

10

Mark Runco

domains in which creative potential might be expressed. It would be a shame to overlook creative potential just because it expressed itself in a domain that is not widely recognized. The least surprising of these is probably the new domain of technology. Even casual observation suggests that technological advance is very frequently highly creative, and technology certainly now contributes to much of our day-to-day lives. Research on technological creativity has examined gaming (Pina, 2020), chats (Chiru, Trausan-Matu, & Rebedea, 2020), memes (Velikovsky, 2020), network mapping (Williams, Runco, & Berlow, 2017; Zhang, 2020), text analysis (Fairchild, 2020), and computational creativity (Gasupta, 2020). The new methods for scoring divergent thinking tests using computer algorithms is also relevant (Beketayev & Runco, 2016; Hass, 2020; Kennet et al., 2019). My students and I have added the technological domain to the Creative Activity and Accomplishment Check List (Paek & Runco, 2018). This is a very useful self-report criterion measure. It has been used since Holland’s (1965) demonstration that school achievement is not predictive of extracurricular achievement and has been called the best measure there is for creativity, at least if the interest in the accomplishments of students (Hocevar, 1980). It has been used dozens of times but up until recently it did not include a technology subscale. A second domain involves creativity in the moral domain. This was suggested in the 1993 special issue of the Creativity Research Journal, edited by Howard Gruber and Doris Wallace. It contained a set of provocative articles on the topic. They were quite varied but, taken together, offered a compelling argument that it would it be useful to devote attention to creativity in the moral domain. Rappaport and Kren (1993), for instance, explored the efforts of Oskar Schindler and Siegfried Jagendorf, two individuals who helped Jews avoid the Nazi genocide during WWII. Schwebel (1993) described moral creativity as a kind of intentional and conscious transformation of values into artistic works. Gruber (1993) himself wrote that “ought implies can implies create.” He used this to describe a creative imperative that leads to useful moral decisions. Importantly, he also described how intentions play an important role in creative morality, an idea reinforced in that same Special Issue by McLaren (1993) and myself (Runco, 1993). I used intentionality as one of two important dimensions, the other being conventionality. Thus, we may consider four quadrants representing combinations of intentional/unintentional and conventional/unconventional actions. This helped identify what is unique about negative creativity (which may be

Frontiers of Creativity Research

11

harmful but is unintentional) and how that differs from malevolent creativity (which is harmful and intentional). Malevolent creativity was examined in detail in what is probably the most widely cited of the articles in the 1993 Special Issue, “The Dark Side of Creativity,” by McLaren (1993). He offered a number of interesting examples of the dark side (e.g., from medicine, engineering). Cropley and Cropley (2000) extended these ideas and offered the useful distinction between malevolent creativity, which is another way of looking at the dark side, and a benevolent creativity, which is probably what Gruber and Wallace (1993) were hoping to encourage when they outlined the need for research on creativity in the moral domain. For some reason the concept of a dark side grabbed a great deal of attention. It appears that much more research has been done on it than on benevolent creativity. This is unfortunate in the sense that it would be nice to increase the amount of benevolence in the world. Perhaps malevolence grabs people’s attention more than benevolence much like violence on TV grabs people’s attention much more than tranquility. In the terms of cognitive science malevolence is salient. Just as a technological creativity scale was added to the Creativity Activity and Accomplishment Check List, so too is a moral creativity scale now included (Tadik & Runco, 2021). Psychometric research on it is in progress. Another scale relevant further scale is the Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale (MCBS; Hao, Tang, Yang, Wang, & Runco, 2016). Its development and psychometric properties were described as follows: “The present study developed the malevolent creativity behavior scale (MCBS), which contains 13 items and was designed to measure individuals’ malevolent creativity through the behavior of daily lives. A total of 958 participants from different regions of China completed the MCBS in an online fashion. Cronbach’s coefficient, using the MCBSs with entirely complete data, indicated that the MCBS had satisfactory reliability. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that the MCBS had 3 dimensions: hurting people, lying, and playing tricks. MCBS scores were positively correlated with individuals’ aggression, openness, extraversion, and scores on the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (RIBS). MCBS scores also predicted individuals’ malevolent creativity performances when solving realistic, open-ended problems. The MCBS has a simple response medium and scoring procedure. This, along with the adequate psychometric properties uncovered here, indicates that it is a useful tool for research on malevolent creativity. Given that the MCBS contains a relatively small number of categories and items, further research could

12

Mark Runco expand the categories of items and develop and test more items. Moreover, it would be useful to test MCBS’s reliability and validity with other criteria. Perhaps future research could obtain actual MC data from criminal or other unambiguously malevolent samples.” (p. 1) Generalizations from this investigation are limited, given the reliance on a sample from one country, but the tentative results are interesting. Another investigation used divergent thinking tests to examine the tendency to lie in social settings (Walczyk, Runco, Tripp, & Smith, 2008). Dow (2016) reported on the relationship of creativity with plagiarism.

One last domain should be mentioned before turning to Conclusions. This is the domain of political creativity. It too is new on the scene and, as we shall see, in some ways related to creativity in the moral domain–especially as of late. As of late because things seem to have changed, at least in many Democracies around the globe, including the one in USA. Certainly, things like “spin” have been used in political discourse for a long, long time. According to Davis (2008), George Washington used political spin, and if so, it is about as old as American Democracy. In its mildest form, spin simply refers to the process by which the politician offers the best possible interpretation of some event or situation. It is usually slanted and best for that politician’s own political party, or for the politician him- or herself. Spin can be quite creative (Runco, 2022) because it involves finding an original interpretation which does in some way fit with the facts. Sadly, sometimes it is only consistent with the facts in a very minor way! And the distance between the facts and the interpretation or spin has, in the past few years, grown dramatically. Spin has gotten worse and worse. Indeed, the connection to the facts is now often untenable, as is the case of the all-too-frequent mis- and malinformation that plagues social media and politics right now. This is immoral, or malevolent creativity, in that some of it is eroding Democracy and killing people. There was a huge amount of malevolent spin with untenable connection to the facts during 2016-2020, and well over 900,000 Americans died from COVID-19. One estimate, reported in the medical journal Lancet (summarized by Holpuch, 2021) was the 40% of those deaths could have been prevented if the Administration during that period had relied on science and medical fact (cf. Scobie et al., 2021). Much of the mis- and malinformation denied scientific findings about the virus, the vaccines, and social distancing. An example of the malevolent spin involved refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine because it was being recommended by the Federal Government, and

Frontiers of Creativity Research

13

in that sense erroneously infringed on personal freedom. Yet freedom in the US Constitution does not allow one individual to endanger others, and the same people claiming that their freedom was threatened had taken 5-10 vaccines in their lifetime (e.g., polio, influenza, smallpox). Political creativity has become a topic for research. Sternberg (2019), for example, offered a model of ethical leadership that recognizes the value of creativity. I offered strong support for this model (Runco, 2019), as did several others who were asked to comment. And just as the moral and technological domains are now includes on the Creative Activity and Accomplishment Check List, so too has a political creativity subscale been added. The Creative Activity and Accomplishment Check List is a concrete example of how conceptions of creativity have broadened. At this point there are versions with 12 or more subscales, including Writing, Leadership, Music, Engineering, Mathematics, Science, Crafts and Everyday Creativity, Technology, Morality, and Political creativity. Historical examples of political creativity can be offered. For instance, Ferris (2000) offered quite a bit of data showing that, historically, a liberal political orientation is the most likely to support creativity (and personal freedoms). This is not a biased perspective. Ferris described the Netherlands, long a liberal country and with a history that is amazingly rich in invention, discovery, art and design, and numerous other manifestations of creative expression. Then there are data from the USA, including those presented by McCann (2010). He analyzed two Presidential Elections, comparing states with majorities that voted for the Conservative candidate G. W. Bush with states with majorities that voted for the liberal candidates (Al Gore and John Kerry). McCann used data from the US Patent and Trademark office, and in particular the number of patents awarded per state. The results indicated that liberal states received significantly more patents than conservative states during the time in question. Runco, Acar, and Cayirdag (2017) replicated this study with data from 2016. They improved on it by conducting a finer level of analysis: instead of states (N = 50) they used US Counties (N more than 3000). They also found that liberal counties were awarded significantly more patents than conservative counties. The explanation for this is quite simple: conservative thinking about politics probably reflects a conservative life orientation. Decisions are made to conserve the status quo. This is at odds with the introduction of new ideas (and inventions). Patents are regularly used in the research on creative products. That is justified by the procedure and definitions of the US Patent and Trademark Office (see Simonton, 2012).

14

Mark Runco

Conclusion This chapter explores two frontiers in the creativity research. Both involve a kind of broadening of the conception of creativity. The first of these concerns creative potential. The discussion above indicates that the broadening has not been a smooth process. This chapter began by describing some of the very early work in the field of creative studies, much of which did respect creative potential. This included the work of MacKinnon (1965) and others at IPAR, Helson (1999a) and others who collected baseline data for longitudinal studies in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., Torrance, 1962; see Runco et al., 2012 and Subotnik & Arnold, 1993). It also included the Humanistic view of creativity, with its emphasis on creativity as self-actualization. All of this work assumed that creative potential existed and was important, but sometimes it was not explicitly discussed. Then, creative potential was relegated as the field became more concerned with objectivity and the product and social views came to dominate the field. Oddly, these often assume that social recognition is the key criterion for creativity, yet that depends on judgment, and judgment is a notoriously subjective thing. Such subjectivity has been demonstrated in experimental research (Runco, McCarthy, & Erling, 1995) and in historical comparisons (Runco et al., 2010, 2014). The broadening involving the concept of creative potential is really a return to the view that potential is important. Its importance was recognized early on, then dismissed with the heightened concern for objectivity, but lately is being appreciated again, at least in tests that focus on creative potential (Acar & Runco, 2019; Lubart et al., 2016) and work on everyday creativity and personal creativity. The second example of a broadened conception of creativity involves new domains. Here the changes have been smoother. There is still debate about creativity being general or domain specific (Baer, 1998; Plucker, 1998) but by and large few domains were recognized early on (and mostly artistic creativity), and more and more domains have been proposed and studied as the years have passed. Maker (2021) described a reasonable approach where creativity is both general and domain specific. One addition to the field may have contributed to the changing perceptions of creative potential. I am referring to the genetic study of creativity (Rutter et al., 2010; Runco, Noble, Reiter-Palmon, Acar, Ritchie, & Yurkovich, 2011). There were “behavioral genetic studies” long ago, but these did not really examine genes. They compared twins with non-twins (because the former are either 100% or 50% alike genetically) or mothers with adopted or biological children (because the former share 0% genes while the latter share 50%).

Frontiers of Creativity Research

15

Usually, comparisons included being reared together or being reared apart so both genetic and environmental contributions could be compared. Then technologies developed such that genes could be examined, and not long after the genetic basis of creativity was investigated. Such investigations suggest that dopamine may be key (in DRD2 and DRD4 receptors). What is most important here is that there is a well-accepted concept in genetic research, namely range of reaction. The range is determined by genes. They do not dictate some exact trait but instead give the individual a range of possibilities. The reaction, within that range, is determined by experience and environment. This process assumes that genes provide potential. Thus the genetic research, which is quite objective, uses the idea of potential. That may have contributed to the increased appreciation for other research on creative potential. It is useful to go back to the summary of the research on the personalities of creative architects, presented above. That is because it described a follow up analysis of the study of architects initiated by MacKinnon (1964, 1965). MacKinnon was cited above because his work recognized creative potential, but the reason to return to this part of this chapter is because it may not be clear that the research summarized implied something that is a key part of my thesis, namely, that creative potential is an enormously important topic for creativity research, but appreciating potential does not imply that creative achievement is unimportant. Recall here what Dudek and Hall (1991) said about being a good salesperson. That was apparently true of the high-level architects, and it may be true of most famous creators (see Gardner, 1990, on self-promotion). Although I am emphasizing the importance of creative potential in this chapter, this does not detract from an theory of creative achievement. Creative potential and achievement are related to one another! Creative potential is a prerequisite of creative achievement. A person may fulfill his or her creative potential, and that may lead to socially recognized creative achievement. Such creative achievement requires things in addition to creative potential, including luck and, perhaps, self-promotion. In my view those are not a part of creativity per se. My interest is in creative potential and the mechanism that allow an individual to produce something which is new and effective. And although creative potential may lead to socially creative achievement, it may instead simply provide the individual with the means for (a) dealing with day-to-day hassles in a creative fashion and (b) expressing him- or herself in a creative fashion. Neither (a) nor (b) require social recognition. Social recognition is a part of fame and reputation and plays a role in some creative achievements but is not involved in creative potential nor in the mechanism used when an individual conceives of a new and effective

16

Mark Runco

idea. Dudek and Hall (1991) found “salesmanship” in their sample, but that is because it was a sample of famous architects, not because it is a necessary part of all creativity. If they had studied everyday creativity my guess is that they would not have found salesmanship. Another way of approaching this is by acknowledging that although theories of creative potential focus on individuals, they do not dismiss social and cultural influences. Individuals are immersed in a culture at a particular time and place. Each of us is in some ways a reflection of our culture and historical era. That does not mean, however, that creativity depends on social recognition. It merely means that culture is an influence on creativity, usually on a very subtle and implicit level. This is essentially the message of the hierarchical framework for creativity described earlier in this chapter (and in Runco, 2007). This hierarchy distinguishes creative potential from creative performances, including those leading to creative achievement. It holds them both to be legitimate and important approaches to creativity. There is a causal direction because creative potential is required of all creative performances, even if those are of the personal, everyday variety, but also if they are sociallyrecognized creative performances. In that light the study of creative achievements must begin with the creative potentials of an individual. Thinking about personal and everyday varieties of creative behavior must also start with creative potential, for it is latent and must be translated into skills and repertoires that allow it to manifest itself. A good case can be made for the argument that supporting this translation (i.e., fulfilling creative potentials) is the most important objective for creativity research.

References Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2019). Divergent thinking: New methods, recent research, and extended theory Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13, 153-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000231 Barron, F. (1955). The disposition towards originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 478-485. Barron, F. X. (1955). No rootless flower. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Beketayev, K., & Runco, M. A. (2016). Scoring divergent thinking tests with a semanticsbased algorithm. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 210–220. DOI:10.5964/ejop.v12i2.1127 Broberg, G. C., & Moran, J. D. (1989). Creative potential and conceptual tempo in preschool children. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 115-121.

Frontiers of Creativity Research

17

Cheung, P. C., Lau, S., Chan, D. W., & Wu, W. Y. H. (2004). Creative potential of school children in Hong Kong: Norms of the Wallach-Kogan Creativity Tests and their implications. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 69-78. Chiru, C., Trausan-Matu, S., & Rebedea, T. (2020). Creativity in chats. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (3rd ed., pp. 569-578). Oxford: Elsevier. Davis, K. (2008). America’s Hidden History. HarperCollins e-books. Holpuch, A. (11 February 2021). US could have averted 40% of Covid deaths, says panel examining Trump’s policies. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/2021/feb/10/us-coronavirus-response-donald-trump-health-policy Hao, N., Tang, M., Yang, J., Wang, Q., & Runco, M. A. (2016). A new tool to measure malevolent creativity: The Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 18 May 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00682 Helson, R. (1987). Which of those women with creative potential became creative? In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality (Vol. 2, pp. 51-92). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Helson, R. (1990). Creativity in women: Inner and outer views over time. Theories of Creativity, ed. MA Runco, RS Albert, pp. 46--58. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Helson, R. (1996). Arnheim Award address to division 10 of the American Psychological Association: In search of the creative personality. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 295306. Helson, R. (1996). In search of the creative personality. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 295-306. Helson, R. (1999). A longitudinal study of creative personality in women, Creativity Research Journal, 12, 89-102. Helson, R. (1999). Institute of Personality Assessment and Research. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encylcopedia of creativity (pp.71-79). Helson, R., Roberts, B., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringness and change in creative personality and prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1173-1183. Kennet, Y. N., Anaki, D. & Faust, M. (2014). Investigating the structure of semantic networks in high and low creative persons. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-. Kubie, L. (1958). Neurotic distortion of the creative process. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Lubart, T., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity, 1, 41-50. MacKinnon, D. W. (1964). The creativity of architects. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Widening horizons in creativity (pp. 259-378). New York: Wiley. MacKinnon, D. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American Psychologist, 20, 273-281. Maslow, A. (1968). Creativity in self-actualizing people. In Toward a psychology of being (p.135-145). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Patrick, C. (1935). Creative thought in poets. Archives of Psychology, 26, 1-74. Patrick, C. (1937). Creative thought in artists. Journal of Psychology, 5, 35-73. Patrick, C. (1938). Scientific thought. Journal of Psychology, 5, 55-83.

18

Mark Runco

Pina, J. (2020). Gaming. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (3rd ed., pp. 579-584). Oxford: Elsevier. Rappoport, L., & Kren, G. (1993) Amoral rescuers: The ambiguities of altruism, Creativity Research Journal, 6, 1-2, 129-136, DOI: 10.1080/10400419309534471 Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310. Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity: Our hidden potential. In R. Richards (Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature: Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives (pp. –53). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rogers, C. R. (1954/1959). Toward a theory of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 69-82). New York: Harper & Row. Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child Development, No. 72 (Summer), pp. 3-30. Runco, M A. A (2007). Hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. New Horizons in Education, 55 (3), 1-9. Runco, M. A. (In press). Political examples of a dark side of creativity and the impact on education. In C.Mullen (Ed)., Education under duress. New York: Springer. Runco, M. A., Acar, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2017). Further evidence that creativity and innovation are inhibited by conservative thinking: Analyses of the 2016 Presidential election. Creativity Research Journal, 29, 331-336. Runco, M. A., Noble, E. P., Reiter-Palmon, R., Acar, S., Ritchie, T., & Yurkovich, J. M. (2011). The genetic basis of creativity and ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 376-380. Schwebel, M. (1993) Moral creativity as artistic transformation, Creativity Research Journal, 6, 1-2, 65-81, DOI: 10.1080/10400419309534466 Scobie, H. M., et al. (10 September 2021). Monitoring Incidence of COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Status. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/ volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm Subotnik, R., & K. D. Arnold (Eds.). (1993). Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Velikovski, J. T. (2020). Memes: Units of culture. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (3rd ed., pp. 585-604). Oxford: Elsevier. Walczyk, J. J., Runco, M. A., Tripp, S. M., & Smith, C. E. (2008). The creativity of lying: Divergent thinking and ideational correlates of the resolution of social dilemmas. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 328-342.

Chapter 2

Creativity in Organizations Eva Sollárová Department of Psychology, Matej Bel University, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

Abstract The chapter presents the issue of creativity in its relevance within the organizational domain; it shows different perspectives and approaches to creativity as they are applied to the organizational context. Apart from the overview of some well-known theories the chapter presents Rogers’ theory of creativity applied to the organizational context. The topic of creativity in management and leadership is focused on qualities of managers/leaders related to their creativity as well as the impact of managers/leaders on enhancing creativity at the invididual, team and organizational level, as well as on creative and innovative organizational climate. Theoretical concepts, approaches and models are illustrated by means of real stories and examples from the digital field.

Keywords: creativity, innovation, organizational domain, creative manager, developing creativity, creative climate

Introduction “Change is inevitable... Working with change is what creativity is about.” — Ed Catmull, Creativity, Inc. (2014, 107)



Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected].

In: New Horizons in Creativity Editor: Shulamith Kreitler ISBN: 978-1-68507-751-8 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

20

Eva Sollárová

Creativity as a topic of wide scope is important both for individuals as well as society. At an individual level it refers to when a person is solving problems in daily life and, at a societal level, when new scientific findings or new inventions result from creative process. Runco (2004, 658-659) specifies the importance of creativity in both its reactive and proactive roles. Since creativity is reactive it can be seen in flexible reactions to changes, problems or challenges of our day-to-day lives that require solutions or adaptation. Since creativity is proactive it can be seen in its contribution to change – in developing original ideas or in problem finding as the first step of innovations. Both roles are relevant for today’s organizations. Because of the changing needs that today’s organizations are facing and the growing demands for flexibility in bussiness environments creativity as a useful and effective response to changes is more important than ever before. To be able to set a theoretically-driven and empirically-based understanding of creativity within the organizational domain this chapter will present a brief overview of defining creativity, perspectives on creativity as applied to organizational context, and specific approaches or theories with their implications for organizational creativity, together with relevant examples chosen from digital era innovations.

Creativity Defined From among many definitions of creativity, an empirical definition was chosen because it is relevant for the organizatonal context and also represents a good base for approaches presented afterwards. Plucker and Beghetto (2004, 156) state that “creativity is the interplay between ability and process by which an individual or group produces an outcome or product that is both novel and useful as defined within some social context.”

Recognizing the interplay between ability and process provides a rationale for examining efforts at enhancing the creativity of individuals and it also allows for more complex conceptualization of creativity. Evaluating whether an observable product is creative provides concrete examples of the attributes of creativity. Two key elements in the definition of creativity are novelty (i.e., original, unique, new, fresh, different) and usefulness (i.e.,

Creativity in Organizations

21

specified, valuable, meaningful, relevant, appropriate, worthwhile). Social context also establishes a range in which the uniqueness and novelty will be acceptable. The norms of a social context establish boundaries of uniqueness and usefulness (Plucker and Beghetto 2004, 156-158). According to Sternberg and Lubart (1999, 3), the synthesis of novelty and usefulness speaks to the pragmatic nature of this definition, i.e., usefulness for whom in what context, and at what cost to self and others and novel in a certain social context but not in another one.

Different Perspectives on Creativity as Applied to Organizational Context One of often-used classification of creative studies, known as “the P’s of creativity” was proposed by Rhodes (1961/1987, 216-222) where the studies are categorized into person-centered, process-centered, product-centered, and press-centered. A brief overview of the findings will be demonstrated by examples from computer industry, specifically the Apple company. (a) The person-centered studies typically include research on personal characteristics of creative people. The research findings summarized by Barron and Harrington (1981, 452-460) indicate characteristics of creative people such as aesthetic qualities, broad interests, attraction to complexity, high energy, independence of judgment, autonomy, intuition, self-confidence or a sense of self as “creative”. The mentioned qualities are adequate for the picture of Steve Jobs, the founder of the Apple Computer Inc. Even if his leadership style is often labelled as a negative example, his aesthetic sensitivity (as the exemplary example of one of the 10 virtues of outstanding leaders (Gini and Green 2013, 158-172) in designing computers played its important role in the success of the Apple products. (b) The process-centered studies may specify implications of various componential theories of creativity (as will be presented in the following part of the chapter) for the creative process or stage-approach to creative problem solving. The story of Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of the Apple Computer Inc., in using microporocessor as one core element in a new design of a computer that later became the Apple I computer, is an example of using various sources and analogical thinking in the creative process (Isaacson 2011, 58-61):

22

Eva Sollárová

Since the beginning of the 70-ties there existed initiatives promoting the vision of technology becoming a friend of an individual. The Homebrew Computer Club belonged to such an initiative where news about personal electronics could be shared. Steve Wozniak was present at the first meeting of the club, on March 5, 1975 where there was a demonstration of the new Altairthe first personal computer kit – but more important to Wozniak was seeing the specification sheet for a microprocessor. As he thought about the microprocessor – a chip that had an entire central processing unit on it – he had an insight. He had been designing a terminal, with a keyboard and monitor, that would connect to a distant minicomputer. Using a microprocessor, he could put some of the capacity of the minicomputer inside the terminal itself, so it could become a small stand-alone computer on a desktop. It was an enduring idea: keyboard, screen, and computer all in one integrated personal package. He started to sketch out on paper what would later become known as the Apple I. In an interview with Walter Isaccson, the author of the book on Steve Jobs (Isaacson 2011, 60) Wozniak recalled: “That night turned out to be one of the most important nights of my life.” (c) The product-centered studies focus on outcomes that result from the creative process. Examples of revolutionary and successful Apple products: The PC Apple II, the first fully packaged computer, was introduced in April 1977. In various models it would be marketed for the next sixteen years, with close to six million sold. More than any other machine, it launched the personal computer industry (Isaacson 2011, 84). iPhone as the most notable product of Job’s life definitely meets criteria for evaluating novelty and usefulness as it was mentioned earlier in the chapter: In the eight years since iPhone was introduced on January 9, 2007, Apple has sold more than a half billion iPhones. It is the most successful, most profitable consumer electronics product ever, by just about any measure – unit sold, dollars of profit generated, number of global carriers that sell it, the number of apps written for it (Schlender and Tetzeli 2015, 358-359). (d) The press-centered studies relate to significant determinants of behavior in the environment. Ekvall (1999, 405-406) divides the “press“ studies into three groups: those concerning the childhood of the geniuses, those concerning regions and epochs where and when creativity has bloomed, and those concerning organizations. Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989, 231-

Creativity in Organizations

23

233) identified the following “situational influences on creativity”: freedom, autonomy, good role models and resources (including time), encouragement specifically for originality, freedom from criticism, and “norms in which innovation is prized and failure not fatal.” Some influences can also inhibit creativity. These include a lack of respect, lack of autonomy and resources, inappropriate norms, feedback, time pressure, competition, and unrealistic expectations. These do not necessarily inhibit creativity; they are potential inhibitors. The phenomenon that has become known as Job’s “reality distortion field “is a good example: Jobs came to believe that he could impart his own feeling of confidence to others and thus push them to do things they hadn’t thought possible…. “If you trust him, you can do things”, Holmes said. “If he’s decided that something should happen, then he’s just going to make it happen” (Isaacson 2011, 51-55). Trends already mentioned by Runco (2004, 673) in his review of the four categories of research were that in many ways creativity research had broadened its scope in the past 20 years. It is now more of an interdisciplinary effort than ever before, and new techniques, topics, and applications are apparent in the research and are even more valid for more recent research and applications. The chapter will present those trends in the following part, both in the development of approaches to creativity as well as in their applications to the organizational creativity, demonstrated by illustrative examples from the practice.

Approaches to Creativity and Their Applications to Organizations There exist various categorizations of theories/approaches to creativity and the same theory is then classified under different headings. What is important for our choice is to present main ones, supported by research, with potentially rich applications to organizations. In accordance with Sternberg and Lubart’s categorization of approaches to creativity (Sternberg and Lubart 1999, 10-12), the following approaches belong to confluence theories – which means they utilize various multidisciplinary approaches to creativity and hypothesize that multiple components must converge for creativity to ocur. These theories vary in regard to the nature of the components for creativity as well as the way that the components work together and interact. The theories by Mihály

24

Eva Sollárová

Csikszentmihalyi, Robert Sternberg and Todd Lubart, and Teresa Amabile will be considered. The author of the chapter touches upon these approaches briefly, with the aims (1) to illustrate the significance of the major approaches to creativity in developing understanding of organizational creativity and (2) to propose a comparison framework for a fourth theory of creativity by Carl R. Rogers that typically has not been categorized within organizational creativity.

Mihály Csikszentmihály - The Systems Model Mihály Csikszentmihalyi (1999, 314-332) adopted a view that encompasses the environment in which the individual operates. This environment has two salient aspects: a cultural - or symbolic - aspect referred to as the domain, and a social aspect referred to as the field. The systems model proposes that creativity can be observed only in the interrelations of a system made up of three main elements. The first of these is the domain, which consists of information – a set of rules, procedures, and instructions for action. To do anything creative, one must operate within a domain. The second component of a system is the field, which includes all the individuals who act as gatekeepers to the domain. It is their job to decide whether a new idea or product should be added to the domain. The final component of the system is the individual. In the systems model, creativity occurs when a person makes a change in the information contained in a domain, a change that will be selected by the field for inclusion in the domain (Abuhamdeh and Csikszentmihalyi 2004, 33). Creativity is a process that can be observed only at the intersection where individuals, domains, and fields interact (Csikszentmihalyi 1999, 332). How it looks in practice can be demonstrated in regard to the Apple people and one of their top products – iPhone and the impact of introducing iPhone on the whole domain of electronic devices as evaluated by experts from the field: The iPhone was the product of the efforts of thousands of people. The inventions and engineering breakthroughs necessary to make it work are numerous, with special/massive role of Steve Jobs and Jony Ive, the chief design offices in the Apple. Marc Andreessen, the cofounder of Netscape, a highly successful Silicon Valley venture capitalist, calls the introduction of the iPhone a seminal event that “flipped the polarity” of what makes Silicon Valley go. Before iPhone was introduced (in January 2007) only wealthy entities like the military and

Creativity in Organizations

25

big corporations drove technological change. They were the only ones who could afford machines with leading-edge components. Now it’s consumers who lead the way. In other words, Steve Jobs had just turned the computer industry on its head. The iPhone ...is the exact equivalent of a Cray XMP supercomputer from twenty years ago that used to cost ten million dollars. It’s got the same operating system software, the same processing speed, the same data storage, compressed down to a six-hundred-dollar device. That is the breakthrough Jobs achieved (based on Schlender and Tetzeli 2015, 359-363).

Robert Sternberg and Todd Lubart – The Investment Theory of Creativity Sternberg and Lubart’s Investment theory of creativity (Sternberg and Lubart 1999, 10-11; Lubart and Guignard 2004, 45-47) is based on research in cognitive psychology. The theory proposed that creativity requires a confluence of six distinct but interrelated resources, (1) specific aspects of intellectual processes (the synthetic, analytic and practical intellectual abilities, divergent thinking), (2) knowledge, (3) intellectual style or thinking style, (4) creativity-relevant personality attributes (perseverance, willingness to take risks, willingness to tolerate ambiguity, openness to new experiences, and invididuality), (5) motivation (either intrinsic or extrinsic), and (6) environmental context providing physical or social stimulation to help generate ideas and to nurture these ideas and also by evaluating creativity through social judgment. Accoring to the theory, a creative person is one who possesses the necessary resources and uses these resources to “buy low” (pursue ideas that are new or out of favor but have growth potential). Often, when these ideas are first presented, they encounter resistance. The creative individual persists in the face of the resistance and eventually “sells high” (presenting the production publicly, at the right moment for the production to be appreciated). The story of Jobs and Wozniak about the invention of the Apple I computer is a demonstration of “buying low” and “selling high.” After Steve Wozniak finished his new computer design (designing a terminal, with a keyboard and monitor connected to a distant minicomputer) that would later become known as the Apple I, he insisted that he had to offer it first to HP company as that time he still worked for them. So, he demonstrated it to his managers in the spring of 1976. The senior executive at the meeting was impressed, but he finally said it was not something that HP

26

Eva Sollárová

could develop. It was a hobbyist product, and didn’t fit into the company’s high-quality market segments. When later Jobs and Wozniak presented it at the Homebrew Computer Club, the audience was not impressed. The only person who heard more was Paul Terrell, the owner of three computer stores, who agreed to order fifty computers. This was the first business contract for the Apple Computer Inc., company then placed in the garage of Job’s father (Isaacson 2011, 64-67). The story of the Apple I supports Sternberg and Lubart’s claim that (radically new) creative ideas are, in fact, often rejected. As the continuation of the story shows, again in line with the Investment theory, the person then attempts to convince other people of the value of that idea, thereby increasing the perceived value of the investment. Having convinced others of the worth of the idea, the creative person sells high, leaving the idea to others, and moves on to the next unpopular idea.

Teresa Amabile - The Componential Theory of Creativity Teresa Amabile proposed a comprehensive theory of creativity that integrated conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and the social environment with the cognitive and personality constructs that earlier theorists had emphasized. The componential theory of creativity (Amabile and Pillemer 2012, 6-8) includes three intra-individual components that influence creativity, and the social environment as an external component. The intra-individual components are (1) domain-relevant skills (expertise, technical skill, and innate talent in the relevant domain(s) of endeavor); (2) creativity-relevant skills, later renamed “creativity-relevant processes” (flexible cognitive style, personality traits such as openness to experience, skill in using creativethinking heuristics, and persistent work style), and (3) intrinsic task motivation. According to the theory, these components combine in a multiplicative fashion; none can be completely absent, if some level of creativity is to result. The external component, the social environment, can influence each of the intra-individual components. Domain-relevant and creativity-relevant skills can be affected by training, modeling, and experience afforded by the social environment. However, the most immediate and prevalent influence of the environment is exerted on the motivational component, as evidenced by empirical research on the Intrinsic Motivation Principle of Creativity. The original understanding of the motivational component was later modified and

Creativity in Organizations

27

substituted by new theoretical conceptions of motivational synergy (Collins and Amabile 1999, 304-306) proposing how motivation affects creativity: “The intrinsically motivated state is conducive to creativity, whereas the extrinsically motivated state is detrimental “(Amabile 1983, 91). Intrinsic motivation arises from the individual’s perceived value of engaging in the task itself (e.g., finding it interesting, enjoyable, satisfying, or positively challenging), while extrinsic motivation comes from outside sources (e.g., the promise of rewards or praise, or the threat of failing to meet a deadline or receiving a negative evaluation). Jobs is a good example of an intrinsically motivated visionary: Isaacson (2011, 92) revealed what really motivated Jobs when he concludes that Jobs earnestly wanted to change the world. Jobs was motivated more than anything to feel he had made a solid and positive impact on the world during his lifetime. He would say, “I just want to put a dent in the universe.” He really meant it, and there is no question that he left his mark on the world.

Carl R. Rogers – Theory of Creativity Carl Rogers (1954, 252-254) believed that creativity was motivated by people’s self-actualizing tendencies, the drive to fulfill their potential. Rogers thought that the drive for self-actualization was present in everyone, but in order for it to be fully expressed in creative achievement, certain conditions must hold. The mainspring of creativity appears to be the same tendency Rogers discovered as the curative force in psychotherapy – human being’s tendency to actualize oneself, to become one’s potentialities. It exists in every individual and awaits only the proper conditions to be released and expressed. In his theory of creativity Rogers specifies internal and external conditions of constructive creativity (Rogers 1954, 255-260): The Inner Conditions of Constructive Creativity are those conditions within the individual which are most closely associated with a potentially constructive creative act. They are: 1.

Openness to experience: extensionality, as the opposite of psychological defensiveness. It means lack of rigidity, a tolerance for ambiguity, the ability to receive much conflicting information without forcing closure upon the situation or, the complete openness to awareness to what exists at a given moment.

28

Eva Sollárová 2.

3.

An internal locus of evaluation. Rogers stressed that creativity must occur in a context of self-evaluation rather than being driven by a concern with being evaluated by others. Thus, creative individuals themselves must value their own work, a condition that is most likely to emerge in an environment characterized by the absence of external evaluation and the presence of freedom. The ability to play with elements and concepts is the ability to play spontaneously with ideas, colors, shapes, relationships. It is from this spontaneous playing and exploration that there arises the hunch, the creative seeing of life in a new and significant way. When these three conditions obtain, constructive creativity will occur. Conditions Fostering Constructive Creativity. Based on his experience from therapy Rogers believed that by setting up conditions of psychological safety and freedom, the likelihood of an emergence of constructive creativity is maximized.

1.

2.

Psychological safety may be established by three associated processes: a. Accepting the individual as of unconditional worth. Whenever a person with a facilitating function feels basically that this individual is of worth in his own right and in his own unfolding, no matter what his present condition or behavior, he is fostering creativity. b. Providing a climate in which external evaluation is absent. When we cease to form judgements of the other individual from our own locus of evaluation, we are fostering creativity. Evaluation is always a threat, always creates a need for defensiveness. c. Understanding empathically. It is a basic fostering of creativity as it provides the ultimate in psychological safety, when added to the other two. In this climate, a person can permit his/her real self to emerge, and to express itself as it relates itself to the world. Psychological freedom. When a facilitating person permits the individual complete freedom of symbolic expression, creativity is fostered. This persmissiveness gives the individual complete freedom to think, to feel, to be, whatever is most inward within oneself. It is permission to be free, which also means that one is responsible, for instance bear the consequences of his mistakes as well as of his achievements.

Creativity in Organizations

29

The inner conditions of constructive creativity and the conditions fostering constructive creativity as presented in the theory of creativity by Rogers correspond to the main concepts of the Person-Centered Approach (PCA), specifically to characteristics of the fully functioning person (FFP) and conditions facilitating the development of the FFP (Table 1). When relating to the perspectives on creativity, as mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, then the former belongs to the person-centered approach, and the latter to the press-centered approach, both relevant for the organizational context. Table 1. The theory of Creativity and the Person-Centred Approach – relations of the concepts

The Concept of the Fully Functioning Person Rogers originally wrote the paper on the concept of the fully functioning person in 1952-53 and he published it in its original form in 1963 (Rogers 1963, 17-26) where he presents his view on general characteristics of the person who has completed psychotherapy. He presented the picture of the optimum human person after he had formed a picture from his experience with his clients. It is his picture of what constitutes personal or psychological health. According to Rogers (1963, 20-24) such a person is “sensitively open to all of one’s experience” – sensitive to what is going on in one’s environment, sensitive to other individuals with whom one is in a relationship, and sensitive to the feelings, reactions, and emergent meanings which one discovers in oneself.

30

Eva Sollárová

Such a person experiences in the present, with immediacy, is able to live in one’s feelings and reactions to the moment. Such a person lives freely, subjectively, in an existential confrontation of this moment in life. Such a person is trustingly able to permit one’s total organism to function freely in all its complexity in selecting that behavior which in that moment of time will be most generally and genuinely satisfying. Such a person is according to Rogers “a creative person” with a sensitive openness to one’s world, and trust in one’s own ability to form new relationships with the environment. This is the type of person from whom creative products and creative living emerge. It can be concluded that the inner conditions of creativity as specified within Rogers’ Theory of Creativity correspond to the characteristics of the fully functioning person whose qualities are identical to those of a creative person. Both then offer a conceptual framework for understanding a creative employee or a manager or a leader within the organizational context. More facts, findings and applications will be mentioned in the next part of the chapter.

The Development of an Optimally Functioning Personality Rogers sees every person as having the potential to grow and to fully function if specified conditions are present. The answer to the question what conditions are necessary so a person can become fully functioning is expressed in the central hypothesis of the client-centred therapy. According to the clientcentered therapy a person has enormous potential inside himself/ herself to understand himself/herself or to change the self-image of his or her attitudes and self-managing behaviour. It is possible to get to these sources only when a certain definable atmosphere is provided to facilitate psychological attitudes or qualities – emphatic understanding, congruence and unconditional positive acceptance (Rogers 1951, 51-64). These conditions or characteristics of the process are applicable not only in the relationship between a therapist and a client but also, according to Rogers (1951, 230) between a parent and a child, a leader and a group, a teacher and a pupil or a superior and a subordinate. These conditions are applicable for every situation where the development of personality is involved. The characteristics valid for psychotherapy are applicable also to all of the above-mentioned relationships which have been validated in research and practice of various professions and, organizational context (Motschnig and Ryback 2016, 109-138; Sollárová and Sollár 2013, 177-192; Sollárová 2016, 79-90).

Creativity in Organizations

31

It can be concluded that the external conditions fostering creativity as specified within Rogers’ Theory of Creativity correspond to the conditions facilitating the fully functioning person (equals to a creative person) and thus they both offer a general conceptual framework for establishing such conditions and culture in an organization that would foster creativity in employees, managers and leaders. The experience shared by Klaus Haasis, an experienced German CEO, can serve as a demonstration for developing managerial innovation competencies via developing the Person-Centered Approach (PCA) competencies. Klaus Haasis (Haasis 2013, 193-198) shared his experience from his growth in the business of managing innovation via developing PCA competencies (after participating in a training course for PCA in counseling. He links Rogers’ concept of creativity, especially the’relational’ dimension of creativity (p. 194) to innovation. What he stresses is that in every step of the innovation process, we have to deal with “action,” and since actions always have the potential to concern people, we have to deal with people realtionships. People taking part in any innovation process have to change, adapt and to adopt it. They have to change perspectives to get new ideas, they have to leave their comfort zone to believe in something new, and they have to change their former habits to use a new product, service, or process. This can cause anxiety and lead to resistance and conflicts. And this is where/why he values Rogers’ contribution – in his describing the crucial aspect of reducing anxiety and insecurity to create openness for new and trusted ideas, which is the first step in a successful innovation process. The experience mentioned above is a part of an evidence-based effective application of the PCA as a way of developing a manager in his innovative management competence and thus establishing an organizational culture and climate fostering creativity in other employees. All confluent theories mentioned above are multicomponential in their view of what components must converge for creativity to occur. Even if these theories vary in regard to the nature of the components for creativity as well as the way that the components interact, the components they mention can be categorized into those that belong to a person and those that represent the context within which the person functions. In the Systems model (Abuhamdeh and Csikszentmihalyi 2004) it is a creative person (“an individual”) who makes a change in “the domain” within which he/she operates and that change is accepted by representatives (“the field”) of the domain. According to the

32

Eva Sollárová

Investment theory by Sternberg and Lubart (1999) some of the (six) resources that creativity requires belong to a person (intellectual processes, knowledge, thinking style, creativity-relevant personality attributes and motivation) and some belong to the context (environment providing stimulation for generating ideas and providing evaluation of those ideas). In the Componential theory of creativity (Amabile and Pillener 2012) creativity is influenced by three intraindividual components (domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills and intrinsic task motivation) and by the social environment as an external component that can influence each of the intra-individual components. In his theory of creativity, Rogers (1954) specifies two groups of conditions necessary for a constructive creative act to occur. The one belonging to a potentially creative person (openness to experience, an internal locus of evaluation and the ability to play with elements and concepts) and the other characterizing external conditions fostering creativity (psychological safety and psychological freedom). The following part of the chapter will review some of the external conditions within the organizational context that can exert either a fostering or an inhibiting impact on creative processes, results or persons.

Management and Leadership for Creative and Innovative Organizations In the present managerial/leadership domain and organizational setting, the concept of creativity has become a highly fashionable topic, sometimes used as a marketing slogan but mainly and typically symbolizing the acceptance of its inevitable role as a ‘competitive advantage’ in business success (Bilton and Leary 2002, 49) or as an inevitale ingredient of organizational effectiveness in highly demanding and competitive environments indicating an organisation’s capacity for innovation (Sparrow and West 2002, 13). The overlapping and complementarity concepts ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ are supported by views and definitions of renowned creativity authors, such as Ekvall (1999, 406), who views creativity as “a prerequisite for innovation” or Amabile, who defines organizational innovation as “the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization“ (Amabile 1988, 126). The purpose of this part of the chapter is to examine the notion of creativity in the context of businesses and organisations from the perspective of a manager/leader and his/her impact on creativity and innovation in the

Creativity in Organizations

33

organization and, from the perspective of an organizational climate that stimulates creativity and innovation within the organization. Despite differences between the concepts ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ or differences based on tasks and responsibilities across organizational hierarchical level, for the issue of organizational creativity/innovation and especially its enhancement, both concepts are relevant and in the following text will be used interchangeably.

Manager/Leader as a Factor Influencing Creativity and Innovation in the Organization “Creativity is considered to be a vital asset for any person who is in a leadership role.” — Ed Catmul, 2008

Among determinants of the creative organizational climate Ekvall (1999, 408) mentions a manager’s leadership style, that is, the way he or she influences the subordinates and contributes to the goal attainment of the organization. What characterizes the leadership behavior of the manager who has been successful in generating a situation, where people utilize their creative drives and talents? It is not necessarilly that a manager is a highly creative person becoming a model for the subordinates to imitate, neither s/he is an idea generator who offers suggestions. A creative person in a leadership position is the one who makes the subordinates behave creatively. The leadership behavior that encourages a creative climate is strongly oriented toward change and toward people and relations, an on the other side, is not controlling or rules-oriented. This kind of leadership has much in common with the transformational leadership model by Bass and Riggio (2006, 32-46) who maintain that effective leadership depends on the relationships between leaders and followers. Many studies have suggested that transformational leaders have better relationships with their followers and play a key role in creation of a supportive climate that promotes employee creativity (Bass and Riggio 2006, 99-111). The four dimensions of transformational leadership including idealized influence (or charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration promote individual creativity by creating a supportive organizational climate. When transformational leaders

34

Eva Sollárová

intellectually stimulate, they promote their followers’ effort to be creative by questionig assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways. Idealized influence (or charisma) influence followers to perform beyond expectations. Leaders who pay attention to each individual’s need for achievement and growth (individualized consideration) by acting as a coach or mentor, who show tolerance, empathy and support are likely to be viewed as opportunities beneficial to subordinates improvement and learning. Leaders strong in inspirational motivation are able to motivate their followers by articulating an inspirational and ambitious vision, cultivating a climate of psychological safety where followers are encouraged to take risks and energizing followers to perform beyond expectations (Bass and Riggio 2006, 53-54). Following the reasoning described above one can conclude that leaders have great power and influence on employee creativity by providing support for creativity. Peter Russell and Roger Evans, both working for the Creative Learning Consultants, having extensive experience with working for business corporations, conlude their experience in management development and training those two issues came up time and again. One was the need for skills in information technology, the other was skills with people. Moreover, people skills were seen to be more important in the long term than information skills (Russell and Evans 1989, 166). According to them creative management with others requires a much deeper understanding of the people with whom we work, be they subordinates, colleagues or bosses. What they stress as essential to any communication and any relationship, is good listening. Its function is not “only” for developing good relationships and understanding of the people but, it also has a direct impact on performance and results. The consequences of the lack of listening is not just stress at work but direct losses when information from either a boss, colleague or a client is not heard correctly. Valuing difference as another “skill with people” is especially important and beneficial in conflict management and in openness to new proposals with a creative potential. Another skill Russell and Evans (1989, 166) stress is empowerment, that is facilitating another person’s development. An essential ingredient in people management is to foster their own creative processes – that is, to help them understand their own inner worlds – and to trust themselves and their insights. The authors conclude that none of the ideas in the book are new. The author of the chapter would agree and offer her association when reading it; one can see how these ideas are compatible with the external conditions

Creativity in Organizations

35

facilitating creativity as specified in Rogers’ theory of creativity, as well as with the qualities/conditions facilitating the growth of a person (or a team) as specified in Rogers’s Person-Centered Approach applied to group-centered leadership (Gordon 1951, 320-383), or recently to the people-oriented agenda (Motschnig and Ryback 2016, 109-138); or to PCA managerial competence (Sollárová 2016, 79-90), or innovation leader (Haasis 2016, 193-200).

Creative and Innovative Organizational Climate “A hallmark of a healthy creative culture is that its people feel free to share ideas, opinions, and criticisms. Lack of candor, if unchecked, ultimately leads to dysfunctional environments.” — Ed Catmull, Creativity, Inc. (2014, 60)

Ekvall (1999, 404-407) defines the climate of the innovative organization as the capacity to adapt to survival-decisive changes in its business environment by the development of products, services, processes, systems, structures, policies, etc. Such adaptations require climates that stimulate creative behavior. Based on his review of the U.S. and Europe research programs, Ekvall sketched the picture of the creative social climate in organizations: Employees in this type of an organization experience their jobs as challenging and meaningful. Most identify themselves with the activities and goals of the organization. There is a constant exchange of ideas that takes place in an atmosphere of openness and trust. Innovative activity implies uncertainty about the outcome. Innovation involves risk. Consequently, a risk-taking mentality is found in innovative organizations. In the innovative organization there is grerater allowance for mistakes. Uncertainty caused by innovative activities becomes tolerable, and even stimulating, beause of the presence of personal security combined with trust in co-workers and managers. Tolerance for uncertainty, experimentation and the readiness to make decisions on the fly and capture the moment are perhaps the most distinctive features of the innovative climate. Climate where the truth is told and heard, and a decision is made accordingly belongs to the best prerequizites/practices of successful companies. It is not only supported by theory and research but also by practice of successful companies such as Pixar Animation Studios, motion-picture studio, and their leader, Ed Catmul, an acknowledged expert on leadership supporting creativity.

36

Eva Sollárová

Pixar was instrumental in the development and production of computeranimated films in the late 20th and early 21st centuries and they achieved worldwide commercial success. A great deal of Pixar’s success is thanks to Ed Catmull, co-founder and president of Pixar Animation Studios. He has been honored with five Academy Awards and many other awards for his achievement in the field of computer graphics. As a young man, Ed Catmull had a dream - to make the first computer-animated movie and, nine years after founding Pixar with Steve Jobs and John Lasseter, in 1995, Toy Story as the first entirely computeranimated feature film, was released, changing animation forever. The essential ingredient in their movies’ success was the unique environment that Catmull and his colleagues built at Pixar, based on philosophies that protect the creative process (Forbes 2014). In his book, Creativity, Inc., Ed Catmull (Catmul and Wallace 2014, 6066) reveals the ideals and techniques that have made Pixar so widely admired and so profitable. It is a book about creativity in business and - about how to build a creative culture. Attributes of the creative culture that Catmull stresses are (1) culture of accepting risk taking and (2) open/candid communication. In the interview for Forbes (Forbes 2014) Catmull says that it is not the manager’s job to prevent risks, on the contrary it is the manager’s job to make it safe to take them. In practice it means being encouraging when someone comes up with an idea that may at first seem far-fetched. And when that idea fails to pan out, the leader must make it clear that there is no shame in that. In a fear-based, failure-averse culture, people will consciously or unconsciously avoid risk. They will seek instead to repeat something safe that’s been good enough in the past. Their work will be derivative, not innovative. But if you can foster a positive understanding of failure, the opposite will happen. One of Catmull’s key management tools is Pixar Braintrust of filmmakers – a group of directors that offer advice on works in progress on every movie in development at Pixar - It helps identify and solve whatever problems are keeping the film from working – (but the production’s leaders decide what to use and what to ignore from given suggestions). Catmull explains the role of Pixar Braintrust in the process of filmmaking: “A hallmark of a healthy creative culture is that its people feel free to share ideas, opinions, and criticisms. Our decision-making is better when we draw on the collective knowledge and unvarnished opinions of the group. Candor is the key to collaborating effectively. Lack of candor leads to dysfunctional environments. So how can a manager ensure that

Creativity in Organizations

37

his or her working group, department, or company embraces candor? By putting mechanisms in place that explicitely say it is valuable. One of Pixar’s key mechanisms is the Braintrust, which we rely on to push us toward excellence and to root out mediocrity. It is our primary delivery system for straight talk. The Braintrust meets every few months or so to assess each movie we’re making. Its premise is simple: Put smart, passionate people in a room together, charge them with identifying and solving problems, and encourage them to be candid. The Braintrust is not foolproof, but when we get it right, the results are phenomenal” — (Catmul 2018).

The story of Pixar and Ed Catmul can serve as exampes that correspond to Ekvall’s review on creative organizational climate, as well as to Rogers’ Person-Centred Approach applied to leadership. And thus, those examples of good practice support both theoretical approaches and research findings mentioned as valid and effective in fostering creativity within organizations.

Conclusion Even if organizations represent only one of possible creativity domains it can be said that it might represent the domain with one of the broadest applications in theory and research findings within the organizational practice. As the overview of the models or theories in the chapter showed they have broad implications for the organizational context – especially in understanding what works for fostering creativity at any level and, what consequences it brings – increased inner motivation of employees, innovative processes and products, and competitive advantage and success of the organizations. The chapter overviewed all three perspectives – theoretical, research and practical – to inspire those who would like to bring more creativity into their work, into their work with their teams and to supporting the creative climate of their organizations.

Acknowledgment The chapter was supported by the The Slovak Research and Development Agency (APVV, the project No. 17-0557).

38

Eva Sollárová

References Abuhamdeh, Sami, and Mihaly Csikszentmihályi. 2004. The Artistic Personality: A Systems Perspective. In Creativity. From Potential to Realization, edited by Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Jerome L. Singer, 31-42. Washington, DC: APA. Amabile, Teresa M. 1988. “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.” Research in Organizational Behaviour 10: 123–167. Amabile, Teresa M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: SpringerVerlag. Amabile, Teresa M., and Nur D. Gryskiewicz. 1989. “The creative environment scales: work environment inventory.” Creative Research Journal 2, 4:231-253. Amabile, Teresa M., and Julianna Pillemer. 2012. “Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity.” Journal of Creative Behavior 46, 1:3-15. Barron Frank, and David M. Harrington. 1981. “Creativity, intelligence, and personality.” Annu. Rev. Psychol. 32:439–76. Bass, Bernard M., and Ronald E. Riggio. 2006. Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher. Bilton, Chris and Leary, Ruth. 2002. “What can managers do for creativity? Brokering creativity in the creative industries.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 8, 1:4964. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1999. “Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity. ” In Handbook of Creativity, edited by Robert J. Sternberg, 313-335. New York: Cambridge Unviersity Press. Catmul. 2018. [Ed Catmull, Inside the Pixar Braintrust, ); accessed 8 August 2018. Catmul, Ed, and Amy Wallace. 2014. Creativity, Inc. Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration. NY: Random House. Collins, Mary Ann and Teresa M. Amabile. 1999. “Motivation and Creativity.” In Handbook of Creativity, edited by Robert J. Sternberg, 297-312. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ed Catmul 2008. [Ed Catmul, How Pixar fosters collective creativity, Harward Business Review, 2008, accessed 11 June 2014, http://www.resourceful-humans.com/ Documents/Catmull-CollectiveCreativity.pdf Ekvall, Goran. 1999. “Creative Climate”. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, edited by Mark A. Runco, and Steven R. Pritzker, 403-412. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Forbes 2014. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2014/04/08/ed-catmull-whatyou-can-learn-about-creativity-from-pixar/#6332da0d4222. Gini, Al, and Ronald M. Green. 2013. 10 virtues of outstanding leaders. Leadership & character. Wiley-Blackwell. Gordon, Thomas. 1951. “Group-Centered Leadership and Administration.” In ClientCentered Therapy edited by Carl R. Rogers, 320-383. London: Constable. Haasis, Klaus. 2016. “A Person-Centered Approach to Innovation Managament: Experiences and Learnings. “In Interdisciplinary Applications of the Person-Centered Approach, edited by Jeffrey H. D. Cornelius-White, Renate Motschnig-Pitrik, and Michael Lux, 193-200. New York: Springer.

Creativity in Organizations

39

Isaacson, Walter. 2011. Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lubart, Todd, and Jacques-Henri Guignard. 2004. “The Generality-specificity of Creativity: a Multivariate Approach.” In Creativity. From Potential to Realization, edited by Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Jerome L. Singer, 43-56. Washington, DC: APA. Motschnig, Renate, and David Ryback. 2016. Transforming Communication in Leadership and Teamwork. Person-Centered Innovations. Berlin: Springer. Plucker, Jonathan A., and Ronald A. Beghetto. 2004. “Why Creativity Is Domain General, Why It Looks Domain Specific, And Why The Distinction does not Matter.” In Creativity. From Potential to Realization, edited by Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Jerome L. Singer, 153-167, Washington, DC: APA. Rhodes, Mel. 1961/1987. “An analysis of creativity.” In Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics, edited by Scott G. Isaksen, 216-22. Buffalo, NY: Bearly. Rogers, Carl R. 1951. Client-Centered Therapy. London: Constable. Rogers, Carl R. 1954. “Toward a theory of creativity.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11:249-60. Rogers, Carl R. 1963. “The Concept of the Fully Functioning Person.” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 1:17-26. Runco, Mark A. 2004. “Creativity”. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55:657–87. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.psych.55.090902.141502. Russel, Evans and Roger Evans. 1989. The Creative Manager. London: Unwin Hyman. Schlender, Brent, and Rick Tetzeli. 2015. Becoming Steve Jobs. The evolution of a reckless upstart into a visionary leader. Crown Publishing Group: New York. Sollárová, Eva, and Tomáš Sollár. 2013. “Person-Centered Approach: Theory and Practice in a Non-therapeutic Context.” In Interdisciplinary Applications of the PersonCentered Approach, edited by Jeffrey H. D. Cornelius-White, Renate MotschnigPitrik, and Michael Lux, 177-192. New York: Springer. Sollárová, Eva. 2016. “Managing Change, Performance Evaluation, and Controlling with Congruence and Integrity.” In Transforming Communication in Leadership and Teamwork, edited by Rente Motschnig, and David Ryback, 79-90. Berlin: Springer. Sparrow, Paul and Michael West. 2002. “Psychology and Organizational Effectiveness.” In Organizational Effectiveness. The Role of Psyhology, edited by Ivan T. Robertson, Militza Callinan, and Dave Bartram, 13-44. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Sternberg, Robert J., and Todd I. Lubart. 1999. “The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms.” In Handbook of Creativity, edited by Robert J. Sternberg, 3-15. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 3

The Innovator’s Mind: Illuminating a Mental Hologram of Reality Julia Skobeleva† Sigmund Freud University, Vienna, Austria

Abstract Much has been written about the discovery skills that make a great innovator, but most of the literature overlooks a fundamental question: What does a creative mind actually do? Over the past 20 years, the author has studied how innovators in different industries and countries solve problems. Then, she has extensively examined the historical records of legendary inventors, analyzed and compared the data. The pattern is clear: brilliant innovators find solutions to the problems by creating the 3-D insights—visualizing the fragmented knowledge about the problem they puzzle over as a whole—while being synchronized with other minds. The author calls this dynamic process of visualizing the fragmented knowledge as a whole illuminating a mental hologram of reality. By taking an intentional effort to build quality relationships and by pairing with coherent minds, innovator’s mind advances to a unique state of consciousness: the 3-D insight. The goal of this chapter is to develop a special theory of consciousness that explains why the pairing of two coherent minds is required for one of them to advance to this state and illuminate a mental hologram of reality.



Maxim Chechetkin, Sergei Katsev, Vasiliy Volkov, and Gregory Weeks provided valuable comments. † Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected].

In: New Horizons in Creativity Editor: Shulamith Kreitler ISBN: 978-1-68507-751-8 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

42

Julia Skobeleva

Keywords: mental hologram, 3-D insight, mental hologram innovation method, 3-D learning method, social learning, culture pyramid

Introduction Some people turn out to be brilliant innovators. Think of Leonardo Da Vinci, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, and Albert Einstein—they’re the creative minds everyone regards with awe. Brilliant minds find solutions to the problems that seem impossible to solve. Albert Einstein, “while talking with his best friend Michele Besso, the brilliant engineer, took one of the most elegant imaginative leaps in the history of physics.” In his talk “How I Created the Theory of Relativity” in Kyoto, Japan, Einstein recalled, “I suddenly understood the key to the problem” (Isaacson 2007, 122-123). But how exactly did Einstein’s mind generate the key insight that lead to the solution of the problem? Key insights “rarely come from deep pondering in isolation” (Pentland 2013, 86). Einstein’s daily scientific dialogues with his wife Mileva Marić were supplemented by his weekly discourse with a circle of friends-scientists with whom he regularly discussed his nascent theory. Finally, the key insight—or, more precisely, the 3-D insight—emerged during a dialogue with his closest friend Michele Besso. I compare the cognitive process of creating key insights to the process of generating holograms1 used in physics for three-dimensional information storage. When most of us think of holograms—if we think of them at all—we probably see the characters from the Star Wars using futuristic 3-D imaging technologies to communicate across galaxies. Contrary to conventional wisdom, holograms are not optical illusions from science fiction. Hologram is a true three-dimensional image recorded on film by two laser beams. (Two laser beams are the object or illuminating beam and the reference beam.) Coherent light source such as laser is vital for holography: it is not possible to generate a hologram using a laser and a regular light bulb. The natural question is: What makes a hologram different from a photograph? If you tear the hologram of an object—for example, a chair—into pieces, the entire chair will still be seen on each piece; if you do the same manipulation with a photograph, each piece will contain only a fragment of the chair.

1

“The name is derived from the Greek words ‘holo,’ meaning ‘whole,’ and ‘gram,’ meaning ‘to write.’ Thus, the hologram is an instrument that, as it were, ‘writes the whole’” (Bohm 2002, 183).

The Innovator’s Mind

43

What is mental hologram? “Mental hologram” refers to the pivotal moment in discovery process when one mind—laser focused on a given problem and interacting with another mind visualizes the fragmented knowledge about the problem as a whole. Just as two laser beams generate a hologram that captures a true three-dimensional perspective of an object, two focused minds synchronize like laser beams and comprehend the problem in its wholeness. (A new dimension to the solution space emerges as a consequence of the pairing of two coherent minds2.) Consequently, the innovator’s mind illuminates a mental hologram of reality or creates the 3-D insight. I’ve spent the past two decades researching how by pairing with coherent minds and by building a deep human connection, innovator’s mind excites to the state of a higher cognitive performance, and advances to a particular state of consciousness — 3-D insight—that leads to scientific discoveries, innovative prototypes, or creative solutions. My research reveals that creative minds in business, science, and technology take an elegant imaginative leap to solution of the problem—create the 3-D insight—while being synchronized with other minds. Furthermore, every team that makes significant scientific discoveries or creates innovative prototypes begins with a pairing of two minds. This particular synergy becomes the impetus of innovation. A foundational premise of this study is that there is an alternative explanation for the unique ability of world’s best minds to produce gamechanging inventions (given that discovery skills and talent are the prerequisites). I draw on my research on technological innovation in business that explains why the pairing of two coherent human minds is required for one of them to create the 3-D insight—to illuminate a mental hologram of reality— that leads to the creation of innovative prototype. The goal of this chapter is to develop a special theory of consciousness that focuses on mental hologram as a core example and explains the basic process of social learning which leads human mind to visualizing the fragmented knowledge as a whole and seeing the whole picture of the problem and a solution in a three-dimensional space. I begin with an empirical examination of the one research stream in management that considered the strong link between ideas flow and social

2

I propose the following equivalent to the term “coherence” from physics to define the parameters of human cognitive interaction: coherent minds are characterized by extreme intellectual intensity which enables them to focus on a problem, they are able to synchronize their knowledge and understand each other well (their thought processes are in phase), and they are able maintain a specific perspective (angle) relative to their area of expertise, while discussing the problem.

44

Julia Skobeleva

learning. The second section builds a new model of culture that explains that cultures of different-sized social groups are the containers for the tidbits of fragmented knowledge. Finally, I circle back to my mental hologram innovation or 3-D learning method to explain why the pairing of two minds is required for one of them to create the 3-D insight—to illuminate a mental hologram of reality—and to speculate on future direction of research on consciousness.

Social Learning A variety of natural and social sciences examined the phenomenon of social learning and its influence on human cognitive development. On December 23rd 2006 The Economist published a special report3 on neuroscience featuring six different accounts. One of them, “As Others See Us”, begins with a statement: “Dealing with people changes our minds.” It establishes the fact that “the evolutionary pressure that drove the enlargement of the human brain was not a need to survive in the natural environment but a need to negotiate the social one.” It unlocks more knowledge about the fact by mentioning mirror neurons responsible for subjective experiences of connection and empathy and vital for social learning. Years before Dr. Sandy Pentland from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published his book “Social Physics” (Pentland 2014) exploring how good ideas spread, I published an article (in Russian) exploring entrepreneurial innovation and knowledge creation in cross-border networked firms (Скобелева 2007). According to my empirical research on entrepreneurial innovation in technology, innovation is not about science, it is about the social interaction between scientists involving culture as a mechanism for transmission of the puzzle pieces of knowledge. My datadriven theory highlighted the two-phase four-stage dynamic process of social learning—the dynamic nature of which is observable—that leads to innovations and explained how innovative prototypes emerge from a social learning process that begins with a pairing of two minds (Skobeleva 2008; see the revisited and enhanced model in Figure 4). I discovered the fundamental cognitive element in the second phase of the basic social learning process which I called illuminating a mental hologram of reality. 3

While I was putting the finishing touches on this chapter, I realized that my research followed the lead of this special report in The Economist.

The Innovator’s Mind

45

In “Social Physics,” Pentland points out that all learning is social (Pentland 2014). However, the theory presented in the book does not tackle the fundamental question: What is the structure of the basic process of social learning? The theory about the fundamental cognitive element in innovation that I developed in my earlier research addresses this gap. It is noteworthy that the theory is transdisciplinary4 and qualifies as Kuhn’s “revolutionary5 reformulation of the preceding scientific tradition” (Kuhn 1996).

Concept of Culture The academic literature on the subject is vast. When I explored the most influential models of culture in the Western management literature, I found cracks in the popular paradigm: the leading models of culture enshrine the theory that culture is a program of behavior. The dimensioning of culture in the way that it is described in popular management textbooks suggests to the masses that terms “culture” and “national differences in behavior” can be used interchangeably. Viewed from within the confines of the discipline of management, cross-cultural innovation is either impeded by what I call the “culture-as-a-barrier” 6 or accelerated by “culture-as-an-asset”7. Thus far, the cross-cultural research tradition has been influenced by the Dutch theorist Geert Hofstede. It is noteworthy that original ideas and model of culture which Hofstede introduced in one of his later books (Hofstede and Minkov 2010, 6) seem to come from the philosophical oeuvre “Philosophy of Culture”8 written by the prominent Russian-Jewish philosopher Moissej 4

In a detailed argument, Stock and Burton (Stock and Burton 2011, 1099) define the concepts of interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. According to the authors, transdisciplinarity aims at “reconstituting and rearranging the nature of disciplinary knowledge thus creating, through fusion across arbitrary intellectual boundaries, new synthesized disciplines with which to address the real-world problems at hand explicitly through collaboration.” The transdisciplinary science is unusual in two respects. First, there are an integration and adaptation of concepts from natural and social sciences. Second, the scientists from natural and social sciences collaborate to address complex problems. 5 “Normal science” (Kuhn’s term) is monodisciplinary because the prevailing paradigm is to stay within the boundaries of one discipline. The results of the transdisciplinary research challenge existing monodisciplinary theories. 6 For instance, see Nancy Adler’s article “Communicating across Cultural Barriers” published on the researchgate.net website in 2003. 7 Johansson’s “intersection of fields, disciplines, and culture” provides an illustrative example of recognizing the innovative potential of the “place where different ideas meet” – a creative cluster (Johansson 2006, 2). 8 I have drawn extensively from the ideas in this book.

46

Julia Skobeleva

Kagan (Kagan 1996, 116). Kagan’s philosophical theory of culture offers the most comprehensive and influential attempt to develop a theoretical framework to plumb culture as a complex phenomenon. Hofstede and Minkov proffer a model of culture with three distinct levels: universal, specific to group or category, and specific to individual outlined in the form of a triangle (Hofstede and Minkov 2010, 18). However, the authors do not explain conclusively their theoretical findings including designation of the levels of culture. The categorization is indistinguishable from the one proposed by Kagan in his three-dimensional model of culture (Kagan 1996, 36). Hofstede and Minkov’s claim that human programs of behavior are transmitted via two pathways: genetic and non-genetic, that leads authors to the conclusion that some programs of behavior are inherited, while others are learned. In contrast, Kagan conducts a systemic and exhaustive philosophical analysis of culture as a complex phenomenon in his over 300 pages book. In particular, the author goes into great depth to explain why culture is a nongenetic mechanism of social inheritance used by humans to transmit all their behavioral programs9. M. Kagan postulates that culture is one of the four forms of being, together with nature, human, and society. The nature form of being differs essentially from the culture form of being in that the behavior of all animal species is stable and repeats itself from generation to generation via hereditary— genetically transmitted—programs. Thereof, animal behavior is subject to minimal alterability by the means of play, training, and own life experience. Humans do no longer transmit their programs of behavior genetically because the mechanism responsible for passing programs of behavior from one generation to another became atrophied in humans. The genetic mechanism which served to transmit all behavioral programs from one generation to another, from the entire species to an individual was replaced by culture—a non-genetic mechanism of social inheritance (Kagan 1996, 28-30). Culture is a derivative from the human activity that is essentially different from the vital activity of animals. The fundamental difference is that animal behavior is genetically programmed, hereditary, transmitted through genetic code specific for each species and, thus, becomes instinctive for each creature. Human beings neither inherit programs of behavior nor transmit them to their descendants genetically. Therefore, a human being must develop the program of behavior in one’s lifetime and select the optimal variant from the spectrum 9

Kagan’s concept resolves inherent weaknesses in the prominent models based on the assumption that culture is “socially learned behavior within subsets of a population” (Laland and Hoppitt, 2003).

The Innovator’s Mind

47

of possible variety, create a new—unknown to the ancestors—program and communicate it to the descendants. Kagan points out that scientists often conflate two different terms: “social” and “collective.” Kagan emphasizes that social is not synonymous with collective. The term “collective” means a joint nature of some actions; the term “social” denotes a form of behavior which is unique to humans—a non-hereditary one. It is a misnomer, then, to use these two terms interchangeably. Society is a non-genetic way of connecting people in their united life and joint human activity. Societal relations are not determined biologically, and their structure is not transmitted genetically. While the structure of animal collective is hereditary for all animal species and remains unalterable, the structure of the human society is not given to humans and remains alterable during the entire history of human existence. The history of the humankind is a constant change, broadening, and enrichment of the methods and means of activity. Creativity is immanent in culture. Human creates culture and culture, in its own turn, creates human. Human is a product of culture. This very cultural quality differentiates human activity from the vital activity of animals. Human is a bio-socio-cultural system. Culture ties natural and social in human existence10. According to Kagan, individuals are born into a certain society and the system of existing social relationships influences the formation of their personalities. Individual cannot choose the direction of this influence because it is common to all people living under particular social conditions. In other words, the influence of the society on an individual mainly depends on the character of this society, that an individual, as a rule, does not choose. In contrast, an individual is relatively free to choose the cultural values (Kagan 1999, 75). Kagan puts forth that individual is not a tabula rasa but a unique matrix, structured by nature. Therefore, culture should adjust its active force to each individual matrix. Culture is a multidimensional space of crossing modifications of the unique type of a human being, which creates this unique modification of culture that, in its turn, forms his/her consciousness. An individual is a product of the interaction of the genetic heredity and the game of chance (Kagan 1996, 116). From the psychological perspective, Kagan defines culture as the aggregate of non-hereditary qualities of a human being (and a humankind, and a nation, and a personality). In my model I use the designation of levels, 10

Hofstede holds that culture “lies between human nature on one side and individual personality on the other” (Hoecklin 2003, 25).

48

Julia Skobeleva

proposed by Kagan. His second level—cultures of different-sized social groups—I denote in my model as “cultures of various11 social groups” and imply that these social groups are of different sizes (see Figure 1). The second level of Kagan’s three-dimensional pyramid—cultures of different-sized social groups—includes macro groups such as ethnic, national and regional, and micro groups such as demographic (gender and generational), educational, sociological (social class), occupational, and confessional12. Kagan emphasizes that ethnic and national cultures are examples of macro groups and belong to the second level of the pyramid (not to conflate with the level of common human culture). I have adopted the three-dimensionality and structure of the model of culture proposed by Kagan, re-designed it to offer a better visualization of the concept, and theoretically developed it to include the “meeting zone” or the intersection of one’s own and alien13 cultures (see the splicing of the transparent and shaded areas of the pyramid in Figure 1):

Figure 1. The Culture pyramid: 3-D model of culture with knowledge, values, and vision of the future as the axes.

I postulate that each individual personalizes the values, knowledge, and vision of the future, which were transmitted to the individual through the common human culture and the cultures of different-sized social groups via the means of unique for each cultural group semiotic systems. Semiotic system

11

The idea that an individual is shaped by a myriad of cultures was also developed by Marshall Singer who argued that each communication is a cross-cultural one (Singer 1998, 28-53). 12 The list and the sequence of the different levels of culture in the compared books are indistinguishable (Kagan 1999, 38; Hofstede and Minkov 2010, 18). 13 Alien cultures are the cultures which are not among one’s own variety. For instance, female culture is alien for a man, while male culture is alien for a woman.

The Innovator’s Mind

49

or language of culture captures the knowledge14 in distinctive way. It explains the fact why languages15 are the best understood in the context in which they were created. To study cultures successfully requires the analytic approach that highlights nuanced differences in the depicted levels of culture. Culture is a dynamic system which should be viewed in its wholeness. My work reveals that in the process of social learning, people use alien cultures of comparable16 social groups as a mechanism of reflection and modification of current programs of behavior learned through one’s own cultures. While researching social learning and innovation across borders, I observed a perplexing difference in gender self-image and behavior among female and male entrepreneurs from Austria, Belarus, and Germany. Western European women seemed to be trapped in the cultural perceptual frame stifling them from expressing the full range of their capacities and seeing themselves as threedimensional. The fear of alpha females is embedded in the culture. To deconstruct cultural gender frames in Austria and Germany17, I developed the three-dimensional femininity and masculinity cubes18 using the mental hologram innovation method. The cubes are three-dimensional (the X axis is intellect, the Y axis is fertility in the femininity cube and virility in the masculinity cube, the Z axis is leadership; See Figure 2 and Figure 3). For purposes of exposition, I labeled the vertices of the cubes. It is important to mention that all women are three-dimensional, and they are dynamic as opposed to static (in other terms, moving) points in the cube— intellect and leadership tend to increase during the life span, while the fertility is decreasing. In coming up with dimensions to measure femininity, I drew on popular culture. In Austria and in Germany women are being placed into one of the three mutually exclusive categories: “die Schöne”—the Beauty (the vertex of the cube on the Y axis), “die Kluge”—the Smart Cookie (the vertex of the cube on the X axis), or “der Boss”—the Boss (the vertex of the cube on the Z axis). The problem is not a linguistic one. Due to the authority of the catholic myth in Austria and in Germany, women are seen in a strict

14

For illustration, see discrete puzzle pieces on the surface of the sphere in Figure 5. In a similar way, Beaver and Stanley (Beaver and Stanley, 2019) explain how conversation and language influence the formation of in-groups and out-groups. 16 Corresponding social groups are treated as the comparable units of analysis. 17 My gut instinct is that we’d see the same patterns in most Western societies. 18 Not to conflate with a cubicle, a cube is a solid shape which is drawn in a three-dimensional space allowing femininity and masculinity to be seen in its wholeness. 15

50

Julia Skobeleva

dichotomy: Madonna19 or whore20. One of my findings may surprise readers: Whereas the Y axis virility in the masculinity cube measures what it is supposed to measure, the Y axis fertility in the femininity cube is a double bind. Fertility is denied and replaced with a cultural dimension beauty which is reversed21. Cultural frame discourages women from flaunting their beauty (fertility). Sheppard argues that “for women in business, beauty is a liability” and explains it by “the trope of the evil seductress: a subconscious anxiety among people of both sexes that beautiful women will use their looks to manipulate people, mostly men” (Sheppard 2019, 34)22. I argue that it is not the beauty alone but its combination with intellect that is being perceived as a threatening evil seductress or witch (see Figure 2). In a similar way, twodimensional cultural perceptual frames hinder women from seeing themselves and behaving as three-dimensional, alpha females. For instance, the femininity cube takes the mystery out of female behavior at the elitist man-dominated business forum23. It should be noted that religion as a school subject is not taught in Belarus (separation of the religion and state). Therefore, women are not exposed to this cultural frame. Additionally, Belarusian girls and boys are not split into gender-specific groups in the sport class—as it is done in Austria and Germany—and are co-educated together. Girls learn from boys—programs of behavior that are transmitted through male gender culture24: to disagree openly and speak up, be adventurous and independent, to lead and to influence, to 19

Here the reference is made to Virgin Mary. The synonym Harlot is used in the cube. 21 Madonna is very beautiful but—in a true biological sense—infertile because she became pregnant through immaculate conception. Madonna’s (x,y,z) coordinates in the cube are (0,0,0). Harlot’s coordinates are (0,1,0) because she is contrasted with Madonna on the Y axis. If the Y axis were to measure beauty, it would have to be reversed to reflect the fact that Madonna is beautiful. Reversed means having an arrow pointing at the origin—thing that mathematically just doesn’t make sense. Reversal of the axis disintegrates the threedimensional space and results into a two-dimensional frames of femininity (Die Schöne, die Kluge, or der Boss). 22 The research was conducted in America. 23 As Dorina Marlen Heller noted in a Der Standard article on August 21, 2020, “Reden ist silber, Schweigen ist weiblich”(words are silver, silence is feminine, translated from German). The author refers to frightening cultural limitations which she observed at the exclusive and highly coveted Alpbach Forum in Austria. Educated and successful women choose not to speak up. 24 Taylor Swift’s song “The Man” performs a myth addressing widespread desires of American women to enjoy all the freedoms that traditionally come with being a man in the Western society. Blockbuster Captain Marvel (2019) features rising alpha female. Interestingly, one dimension of Captain Marvel’s femininity—fertility—remains unknown. Perhaps, her motherhood will be explored in the sequel. 20

The Innovator’s Mind

51

pursue STEM careers. Boys learn empathy and emotional intelligence from girls.

Figure 2. Femininity cube.

Figure 3. Masculinity cube.

52

Julia Skobeleva

In the masculinity cube, Y axis virility and X axis intellect have straightforward meanings and are self-explanatory. Interestingly, Z axis leadership in the masculinity cube is different from the axis of the same name in the femininity cube. While, the cultural ideals of womanhood praise empathetic leadership qualities, the cultural ideals of masculinity praise forceful leadership and ruthless violence. Take Cesare Borgia—the blood-thirsty medieval ruler, contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci and Niccolò Machiavelli—who is portrayed as a protagonist in Machiavelli’s famous tract. “The Prince” written in 1524 remains one of the most influential books on power and influence in politics and business (Machiavelli 1961). “Is it better to be loved or feared?”– is the famous conundrum from “The Prince.” Machiavelli’s answer: leaders should opt for fear (Cuddy, Kohut, and Neffinger 2013). After visualizing femininity and masculinity as three-dimensional cubes, I explained Belarusian alpha femininity to my Austrian and German students and senior executive clients. We delved into cultural meanings, compared own experiences of growing up in a particular society, and learned from each other. Surprisingly, Belarusian culture (alien to Austrian and German women) helped them to become aware of gender behavioral programs and values transmitted to them via one’s own culture. Thus, I used culture to transmit the tidbits of fragmented knowledge about idealized models of womanhood and manhood to my students and clients, allowing them to break the frame transmitted through their own culture and see their femininity and masculinity as a whole or three-dimensional.

Mental Hologram Innovation Method To study how innovators solve problems, I examined three different sets of data collected in the field and lab studies. In methodological terms, I used indepth interviews and observation with subsequent analysis of qualitative data using a grounded theory method. I reviewed the tenets of this method in my previous publications (Скобелева 2007, Skobeleva 2008). To collect the first data set, I carried out field research in four waves in 2002, 2007, 2012, 2019 in five countries25. The sample included more than 170 entrepreneurs and 25

In 2007 mental hologram innovation method was discovered from data, in 2009 it was applied as a 3-D learning method, from 2009 to 2020 mental hologram innovation method was tested and refined as a practical tool to harness creativity and catalyze innovation in business, science, and technology by helping managers of R&D labs, start-up ventures and

The Innovator’s Mind

53

managers involved in innovation (wide range of cultures and occupations, from start-ups to large corporations and both genders). The second data set was collected in the 60 living learning labs—a term borrowed from Sandy Pentland—with more than 1000 participants. I taught managers and entrepreneurs how to use the mental hologram method cross-border, crossculture, cross-specialization to frame and solve problems collaboratively, then I gave them problems and observed them during a period of 8 to 15 weeks (second data set). Finally, I analyzed the biographical records of legendary creative minds (third data set) to find the patterns across all three sets of data. In all three data sets, the clear pattern emerged: driven by insatiable curiosity and relentless urge to learn and master, brilliant innovators forge bonds and develop deep friendships with experts from myriad of cultures who can stimulate them to see the problem from different angles and in different frames of reference26, illuminate all aspects of the problem they puzzle over, and take an elegant imaginative leap to its solution by visualizing fragmented knowledge as a whole or creating the 3-D insight. I call this dynamic process of visualizing the fragmented knowledge as a whole while being synchronized with a coherent mind illuminating a mental hologram of reality. Based on inductive research, I developed the following two-phase four-stage mental hologram innovation method imitating basic social learning process (see Figure 4). It is useful for companies to look at it through the lens of core competency. The mental hologram innovation method is practical solution for those that aren’t getting the most out of their innovation capabilities. The method described here, which has been tested and refined over more than a decade, can help any business or research lab to catalyze innovation and produce game-changing inventions. Done right, it works out well for both individual innovators and teams.

design groups to create the environment where teams of experts could collaborate, innovate and scale the business. 26 Examples abound. Take the frames in which physics and psychology see the concept of energy. Energy—the key concept in physics—is measured in joules. For a physicist, the educational culture common to humanities and social sciences is alien and vice versa. Surprisingly for a natural scientist, the term energy in psychology does not have a clear measurement. By studying psychology, a physicist breaks the frame transmitted through own culture by learning to see the phenomena from a different perspective—in a different frame— transmitted through the alien educational culture.

Figure 4. Basic social learning process or mental hologram innovation method.

The Innovator’s Mind

55

Understanding of the dynamics of “mental hologram” will help many more insatiably curious minds transform themselves into the great innovators they were always meant to be. The benefits are clear. A scientific approach to pairing minds—focused on matching coherent minds and assigning them to the roles of an illuminating and a reference mind, understanding their capacity for learning from each other, and accelerating their knowledge synchronization—is an extraordinary source of competitive advantage. It is noteworthy, that the mental hologram innovation method can be also used as a 3-D learning method for multidisciplinary groups of scientists (for example, Limnology Faculty at the University of Minnesota). Part of the appeal of using the mental hologram method is that it helps to catalyze knowledge-based innovation and advance science. As I will explain in the following pages, companies can make the most of it by following four steps. Before exploring the two phases and four steps of the method, let’s look at the seven preconditions in detail.

Matching the Minds Unmanaged process of knowledge creation in a team frequently leads to traps—in problem framing, communication, and knowledge sharing— resulting in failure to solve the problem and innovate. To avoid that, one should begin the process by considering whether the pairing is even possible or feasible. To get the synchronization on track, it’s preferable to have experts who share the same language as the innovator does. The most effective pairing of minds happens when the language of communication is native to both interlocutors or to the entire team. The next most effective—when the language is native to one of the interlocutors (for example, an American and a German communicate in English). The least effective—when the interlocutors communicate via a language which is not native to either of them (for example, an Austrian and a French communicate in English). Can technology make the process easier? No. The process depends on synchronous interaction. To be effective, the dialogue must happen in real time. Compared with face-to-face exchanges or the ones co-located in shared virtual space, texting will not allow to create the 3-D insight. In the mental hologram innovation method two roles need to be assigned—an illuminating mind and a reference mind. The illuminating mind is the innovator who is overfamiliar with the problem and its context. The

56

Julia Skobeleva

reference mind is an expert from a knowledge domain with a different kind of knowledge who helps innovator progress through two phases in the journey of discovery. The goal of reference mind is to maintain a specific angle while answering the questions of innovator27. But remember, the experts must strike a balance between maintaining a specific angle relative to their area of expertise and having a constructive dialogue. To strengthen the outcome of using the mental hologram method so that the best solution—innovative product prototype—ultimately results, you need to find the coherent minds. So again, coherent minds are characterized by extreme intellectual intensity which enables them to laser focus on a problem. They can synchronize their knowledge and understand each other well, while maintaining a specific angle relative to their area of expertise. To set the parameters for the interaction both an innovator and an expert must be insatiably curious. (In case of more than two participants such as a team of entrepreneurs building a start-up or a team of transdisciplinary scientists working in one lab, all team members should possess this quality.) Curiosity will fuel learning and discovery: innovators and experts with inquisitive minds will ask questions, explore, and collaborate. In addition to being insatiably curious, both innovator and the experts should be willing and able to learn, understand the language of each other (such as technical vocabulary or professional jargon), value intellectual partnership, have own original experience and knowledge—valuable to the other partner, be passionate about the daring, innovative project and be interested in learning from each other. Seek out experts shaped by diverse cultures—educational, gender, occupational, national—who possess necessary knowledge and own original experience complementary to yours. Success requires careful analysis of the various kinds of knowledge needed to make innovation possible. Most entrepreneurs, I have observed, have created teams in which each member was the expert in a special field. Take “James” (whose name, like others in this section, has been changed), a co-founder of fast-growing tech-based firms focused on rapid innovation, and one of my consulting clients. James was the illuminating mind. Team members were the reference minds. Each member of the team he created was aces in a special field—3-D animation, marketing, machine-learning, virtual and augmented reality. James’s team ended up creating the products that attracted millions of users worldwide.

27

“Can you explain how that works?” and “Why…?” are two examples.

The Innovator’s Mind

57

To overcome the narrowness of vision, brilliant innovators build intellectual relationships with experts from myriad of cultures28. The diversity in knowledge and framing generates a rigorous discourse and sparks new thinking. It’s important to realize that the presence of culturally diverse minds is not sufficient to have a constructive dialogue. To bring coherence to seemingly fragmented and unrelated knowledge, dialogue begins when people have shared experiences and knowledge to serve as a foundation for a dialogue (for instance, shared culture). Having shared knowledge and cultural code will enable them to understand technical vocabulary or professional jargon of each other, to carry a dialogue, and have a seminal discussion. Interlocutors should equally value the intellectual partnership: neither side can dominate or play “verbal king-of-the-mountain” who needs “to win every exchange of ideas” (Farson, Keyes 2002). “Dialogue is process of intellectual inquiry rather than of advocacy, a search for truth rather than a contest” (Charan 2006). Experts ask sharp, relevant questions, often in the course of furthering their own learning about the innovator’s problem. It is important to note, however, that a dialogue like this requires a fundamental trust in the people. Quality relationship with expert stimulates the innovator’s mind, enables creative thinking, and reveals things it could not see. This involves equal measures of self-disclosure and vulnerability, reciprocity and shared passions, social chemistry, and patience—which are, after all, are the ingredients of quality relationships (Denworth 2020). Rivalry and a competitive spirit will lead to mistrust and desire to protect knowledge rather than share it. As a result, intellectual collaboration gets left by the wayside.

Phase 1: Minds’ Synchronization Synchronize your mind with your intellectual counterpart’s mind by symmetrically exchanging valuable knowledge and experience. In having a dialogue with an expert, innovators may face substantial challenges understanding the expert’s incomprehensible technical language and jargon. A question that we face is how to create this common understanding necessary for knowledge synchronization. The experts should put an additional effort in deciphering the technical vocabulary, re-formulating their ideas in accessible language—for misunderstandings caused by ambiguity to disappear. They should be great teachers able to pass on their tidbits of fragmented knowledge. 28

See occupational, gender, educational, national levels of culture in the Figure 1.

58

Julia Skobeleva

The experts should use a plain language while talking about complex concepts, so that a high schooler could understand with zero context or explanation. James looked to his teammates—each of them was an expert in a particular field—as teachers.

Step 1. Symmetrical Exchange of Valuable Knowledge and Experience Two minds—thought partners—focus closely on the problem of innovator and try to understand its dynamics. Start with defining the problem and identifying knowns and unknowns, keep notes on everything and share the information. The interlocutors must explain, in simple terms, their technical vocabularies. It requires a special effort to make really complicated things understandable. To enhance the knowledge synchronization, visualize your ideas when possible. All dialogues should be recorded to be reviewed later for precise formulations of 3-D insights. When I—illuminating mind—was working on my theory, one of the problems was to find the analogy to the concepts from physics—“phase,” “coherence,” and “hologram”—as applied to the interaction of human minds. I conducted dialogues in particular sequencing order with physicists—reference minds—experts in quantum physics, laser optics, and biophysics—and worked toward a shared framing of the problem. To do that we used a sinusoid—mathematical curve—to understand the concept of phase in physics. (Mathematics—shared culture—served as a foundation for the dialogue.) Step 2. Adjustment to a Shared Framing of the Problem The second step is realizing that to understand the problem as it is we need to break our frames or perceptions. These frames are transmitted via the cultures of different-sized social groups such as educational, gender, occupational, national. The role of problem framing is central in creativity because “creative solutions come from alternative definition of your problem” (WedellWedellsborg 2017, 79). Consider Einstein. By pairing with Besso’s mind of an engineer, Einstein’s initial questioning of his assumptions about the concept of time led to discovery that time cannot be absolutely defined. Contrary to popular wisdom, brilliant insights are not mysteries of serendipity. They emerge from a systematic discovery process involving social learning.

The Innovator’s Mind

59

Phase 2. Illuminating a Mental Hologram of Reality Generating mental holograms is the key, I believe, to creating world-changing innovations. By pairing with coherent minds and by taking an intentional effort to build quality relationships, help your mind to advance to a particular state of consciousness: 3-D insight. To illustrate this state of consciousness, I use a 3-D sphere, showing the orbits of participating minds and plotting the connections between the puzzle pieces of knowledge during the pairing of two minds (see Figure 5). The center of a sphere represents a problem, orbits are tracks that allow the problem to be seen through the lens of others’ expertise, the puzzle on the surface is the emerging knowledge or solution. A piece of the puzzle is a tidbit of fragmented knowledge. The discrete puzzle pieces on the surface of the sphere are the tidbits captured by the language of one’s own culture, the two connected pieces are the tidbits of fragmented knowledge—from different levels of the culture pyramid—connected by two minds with intersecting orbits. Once the puzzle pieces on the sphere’s surface fall into place—the 3-D insight emerges—the problem is solved. The number of tidbits of fragmented knowledge that can be connected is infinite. In the end, the innovators that build the most vibrant web of social interactions and illuminate a mental hologram of reality will create new knowledge and produce the gamechanging inventions.

Figure 5. Phase 2. Consciousness of the innovator’s mind in the state of 3-D insight or illuminating a mental hologram of reality.

60

Julia Skobeleva

Step 3. Establishing a New Dimension to the Solution Space Let’s examine that in depth. Moving on the track of one’s own orbit in the world of abundant but fragmented knowledge, James’s mind continuously processes information and acts as an illuminating mind, or a central connector of knowledge widely dispersed in different domains. James’s mind perceives a problem in a two-dimensional plane through the lens of his expertise. By pairing with the coherent mind, James breaks the bonds that limit his vision. As soon as his mind becomes synchronized with Julia’s mind which acts as a reference mind, he enters her orbit, dislodges his mind and starts seeing the problem through the lens of her expertise. This is not to say that illuminating mental hologram of reality is seeing from different perspectives. A new dimension to the solution space emerges as a consequence of the pairing of two coherent minds. James learns from Julia and Julia learns from James. In so doing, two synchronized minds co-create new knowledge. Different kinds of knowledge converge—two puzzle pieces suddenly connect on the surface of the sphere. Next, James’s mind pairs and synchronizes with the mind of another expert: Jinny. After a few puzzle pieces have fallen into place, James asks Lucas, Suzanne, Martha, and Alex—experts from various educational, national, occupational, and gender cultures—further questions, engages in a rich dialogue, collaborative and candid debate, and enters their orbits. James’s mind frees itself from preconceptions and connects disparate thoughts. Step 4. 3-D Insight and Eureka Moment Gradually all aspects of the problem will be illuminated and visualized as a whole. Finally, all elements converge, and all pieces of the puzzle fall into place. James fathoms a real problem and finds a creative solution to it. His mental hologram is a better reflection of reality. (He sees the problem he puzzled over in a three-dimensional space and takes an elegant imaginative leap to solving it.).

Conclusion That data has led me to two main findings: First, the pairing of two coherent minds is required for one of them to create the 3-D insight or illuminate a mental hologram of reality. Progressing to the Phase 2 Illuminating a mental hologram of reality—movement in comprehending the problem and finding the solution to it—requires synchronous interaction of human minds in the format of a dialogue. The fragmented specialized knowledge about the

The Innovator’s Mind

61

problem is hidden in human minds in culture-specific frames. Moreover, the fragmented knowledge is encoded by culture-specific semiotic systems. Some tidbits of knowledge were learned through one’s own culture, the others are to be learned through alien cultures (to solve the knowledge fragmentation problem). Innovators use culture as a mechanism for transmission of the puzzle pieces of knowledge, perceive problem “in consistent but habitually incomparable frames of reference”29, establish a new dimension to the solution space, unframe and find solutions—imagine prototypes that never existed before—by connecting the tidbits of fragmented knowledge and visualizing it as a whole. On November 17, 2020, The Economist published a special report on neuroscience featuring two rival theories of consciousness. The results of my research shed light on a perennial question about the nature of the phenomenon and support one of the rival theories—Giulio Tononi’s integrated information theory (IIT). Tononi thinks that “consciousness is a direct consequence of the interconnectedness of neurons within brains. IIT argues that the more the neurons in a being’s brain interact with one another, and the more complex the resulting network is, the more the being in question feels itself to be conscious.” I argue that neurons connect into networks when human minds interact with each other and learn from each other. Because high neuronal connectivity is a function of the number of participating minds and the complexity of the interactions between them, the mental hologram theory explains Tononi’s discovery— “more complex the resulting network is, the more the being in question feels itself to be conscious”—and predicts that pairing of human minds during a dialogue generates consciousness. I postulate that when neurons connect, being’s mind experiences Eureka moment. My second major finding was that 3-D insight—a mental hologram—is a particular state of consciousness. Human consciousness has different states which are characterized by different energy30 levels. Mental hologram—3-D insight—is one of the energy states of consciousness. By pairing with coherent minds, the innovator’s mind advances to this state. Why the pairing of two 29

I borrow this expression from (Bohm and Peat 1987, 38). Interestingly, I discovered Bohmian tradition—with some parallels in thinking—only recently, more than a decade after I have discovered the governing dynamics of 3-D insights and invented the term mental hologram. 30 I realize that exact connection to the term energy—as per a physicist’s understanding of it— cannot be spelled out here but I postulate that such a connection exists. I want to specify that a proper transdisciplinary theory is needed to upend understanding of the nature of consciousness. I invite physicists to investigate this phenomenon to find the answer to the following question: What are the ways of characterizing the states of consciousness and measuring its energy?

62

Julia Skobeleva

coherent minds is required for one of them to advance to this state? One explanation—which finds support in my research—is that the core engine of illuminating a mental hologram is social connection. Strong personal ties stimulate cognitive functioning, increase cognitive engagement, information and idea-sharing, and learning (King 2020, Lieff 2020). These findings indicate that generating consciousness is an inherently social act and shows the future direction of transdisciplinary research on consciousness: Why Latin words “con” and “scio” are spliced together to produce a word “consciousness,” original meaning of which was “to know”— or, more precisely—”to comprehend together” 31?

References Altshuller, Genrich. 1999. The Innovation Algorithm. Worcester: Technical Innovation Center. Beaver, David, and Jason Stanley. 2019. “Toward a Non-Ideal Philosophy of Language.” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 39/2: 501-545. Bohm, David. 2002. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. New York: Routledge. Bohm, David, and F. David Peat. 1987. Science, Order, and Creativity. New York: Bantam. Charan, Ram. 2006. “Conquering a Culture of Indecision.” Harvard Business Review 1: 34–35. Christensen, Clayton M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Cuddy, Amy J. C., Kohut, Matthew, and John Neffinger. 2013. “Connect, Then Lead”. Harvard Business Review 91/4: 34–35. Denworth, Lydia. 2020. Friendship. New York: W. W. Norton. Eagleman, David. 2020. Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain. New York: Pantheon. Farson, Richard, and Ralph Keyes. 2002. “The Failure-Tolerant Leader.” Harvard Business Review 8: 34–35. Furr, Nathan, and Jeff Dyer. 2014. The Innovator’s Method: Bringing the Lean Start-Up into Your Organization. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Hoecklin, Lisa. 2003. “Culture: what it is, what it is not and how it directs organizational behavior.” In Cross-Cultural Management Redding, edited by Gordon and Bruce W. Stening, Vol. II 23-40. Northampton, MA: Elgar Publishing. Hofstede, Geert, Hofstede, Gert J., and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition. McGraw Hill. Isaacson, Walter. 2007. Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York: Simon & Schuster. 31

The English word “consciousness” is a derivative of two Latin words: con—“together” and scio— “to know.” Interestingly, the Russian equivalent “сознание” is composed of the two words with identical meaning: со—“together” and знание—“knowledge.”

The Innovator’s Mind

63

Isaacson, Walter. 2017. Leonardo da Vinci. New York: Simon & Schuster. Johansson, Frans. 2006. The Medici Effect: What Elephants and Epidemics Can Teach Us About Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kagan, Moissej S. 1996. Philosophy of Culture. St. Petersburg: Petropolis. King, Marissa. 2020. Social Chemistry: Decoding the ++Patterns of Human Connection. New York: Dutton. Kuhn, Thomas. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Third Edition. The Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laland, Kevin N., and William Hoppitt. 2003. Do Animals Have Culture ? Evolutionary Anthropology 12:150 –159. Lieff, Jon. 2020. The Secret Language of Cells. Dallas: BenBella Books. Machiavelli, N. 1961 (original c. 1514). The Prince, excerpt from The Prince, translated by George Bull. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics. Pentland, Alex. 2013. “Beyond the Echo Chamber.” Harvard Business Review 91/11: 80– 86. Pentland, Alex. 2014. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread—The Lessons from a New Science. New York: Penguin Press. Sarma, Sanjay and Luke Yoquinto. 2020. Grasp: The Science Transforming How We Learn. New York: Doubleday. Sheppard, Leah D. 2019. “For Women in Business, Beauty Is a Liability.” Harvard Business Review 97/6: 34–35. Singer, Marshall R. 1998. “The Role of Culture and Perception in Communication.” In Culture, Communication and Conflict: Readings in International Relations, edited by Gary R. Weaver, 28-53. New York: Simon & Schuster. Skobeleva, J. 2008. “Grounded Theory of Knowledge Creation in Cross-Cultural Executive Teams.” The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Change Management. 8(4): 67-71. Stock, Paul, and Rob J. F. Burton. 2011. “Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-TransDisciplinary) Sustainability Research.” Sustainability 3(8):1090-113. Accessed December 28, 2020. doi: 10.3390/su3081090. Скобелева, Ю. A. 2007. “Ментальная голограмма” реальности: концепция культуры в контексте управления знаниями [“Mechanical globe” of reality: a cultural conception in the context of knowledge management.]. Вестник СпбГУ 8(1): 65-81. Wedell-Wedellsborg, Thomas. 2017. “Are You Solving the Right Problems?” Harvard Business Review 95/1: 76–83.

Chapter 4

Creativity in Diplomacy: The Case of the Global Diplomacy Lab Eirliani Abdul Rahman* Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA

Abstract The world is changing rapidly. While states remain at the center of power in the international system, non-state actors, striving for influence, have emerged. In foreign policy, government-to-government relations alone cannot keep pace with the profound political, economic, social, and technological transformations. A new creative approach is needed. In 2015, the Global Diplomacy Lab (GDL) was founded to advance more inclusive and agile formats of diplomacy and international cooperation to deal with cross-border and global challenges. The GDL does this via its methodology of using co-facilitation and co-creation processes characterized by mutual accountability, respect and inclusiveness to deliver positive transformational change. This essay examines the evolution of creativity or innovation in diplomacy, synonymous with science in innovation and innovation in science, and posits the need for a new creative approach, as epitomized by the work of the GDL. A case study by the GDL has also been included.

Keywords: diplomacy, creativity, innovation, innovation diplomacy, science diplomacy

*

Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected]

In: New Horizons in Creativity Editor: Shulamith Kreitler ISBN: 978-1-68507-751-8 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

66

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

Introduction Creativity is not usually associated with diplomacy. According to the Cambridge dictionary, “creativity” is “the ability to produce original and unusual ideas, or to make something new or imaginative”. In the traditional discourse on diplomacy, the approach has been to discuss the role of innovation vis-à-vis foreign policy. Against this background, creativity could mean changes in foreign policy approaches to deal with an increasingly knowledge e-driven world including responding to developments in the fields of science, technology and innovation. Diplomats have thus moved from relatively neutral scientific collaborations to protecting and advocating for the technology and innovation interests of their countries (Leijten 2017). There are two tracks in this endeavor: innovation in diplomacy, and diplomacy in innovation. However, there is not much literature on this front (Griset 2020), there being a dearth of published strategies on innovation diplomacy (Bound 2016). With there being no research tradition on this that could be built on, what is required instead is the gathering of perspectives from several disciplines in new permutations (Leijten 2017). Other than innovation diplomacy, the other strand when it comes to a creative approach vis-à-vis diplomacy is in “soft diplomacy” or cultural diplomacy. It has been suggested that creative collaboration could play a useful role in cultural diplomacy (Albro 2013). This chapter examines the evolution of creativity in diplomacy from the lens of innovation as a response to the rapid developments in science and technology on the one hand, and in international relations on the other (Leijten 2017). Whether or not cultural diplomacy constitutes a creative approach visà-vis diplomacy is outside the scope of this essay. Against this background, I would like to posit a different approach to creativity in diplomacy, stemming from the work of the Global Diplomacy Lab (GDL), of which I am a founding member. The GDL seeks to disrupt diplomacy by involving non-traditional actors and leveraging innovative methods of co-creating processes and cofacilitating discussions. A case study from the GDL’s work from our Labs in Accra, Ghana and Berlin, Germany in 2019 is included to expound on the work that the platform does.

Creativity in Diplomacy

67

Innovation Diplomacy and Science Diplomacy From the creative perspective, the term “innovation diplomacy” has entered the diplomatic lexicon especially where it pertains to the economy and science. Leijten (2017) noted that innovation diplomacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, with most publications, especially advisory reports to governments, dating from 2005 or later. The concept of innovation diplomacy appears to be the result of empirical approaches rather than the product of theoretical reflection (Griset 2020). As such, it is presented as an evolution derived from science diplomacy. There is no widely used definition of science diplomacy, but there is general agreement that science diplomacy is at the nexus of science policy and foreign affairs (Leijten 2017). The collaboration may be directed towards diplomacy for science viz. science and technology goals but may also serve science for diplomacy viz. broader political purposes like building mutual trust. The use of these two terms have become commonplace since the 2010 joint conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Royal Society (Leijten 2017). Innovation diplomacy encompasses the concept and practice of bridging distance and other divides such as cultural, socio-economic and/or technological with focused and targeted initiatives to connect ideas and solutions with markets and investors (Leijten 2017). More than science diplomacy, it is linked to what is sometimes called economic diplomacy with its focus on building national gains in trade, investment and technology by diplomatic means. Both the concept of science diplomacy and the role of the foreign services dedicated to science diplomacy are evolving. With the rise of the knowledge economy, with the role of knowledge as a growing factor in a country’s economic prosperity, knowledge has become a leitmotif in international relations (Leijten 2017). The concept of knowledge has changed and broadened: from scientific knowledge to technology including how technological knowledge is embedded in products and services, to the capacities to increase innovation opportunities viz. social and economic value creation through new goods, services and systems (Leijten 2017). Innovation policy goes beyond the somewhat better-established practices of science diplomacy (Sussex 2011). Such practices, which includes having science attachés in embassies, were strongly shaped by a view on relationshipbuilding based on a relatively neutral and independent science. The new practices inherent in innovation diplomacy are closer to direct economic interests, opening a world of diplomatic networking which, to be effective, needs focus and guidance (Sussex 2011). Traditionally, science diplomacy has

68

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

had a focus on building trust and collaboration, but with the growing importance of knowledge-driven innovation as a growth factor in the economy, competitive thinking is also becoming strong. Innovation policy, oriented as it is at strengthening a country’s innovation system, evidently has strong competitive elements. As such, differences between the dynamics and related politics of science and of innovation may create tensions in policy making (Sussex 2011). Theoretically, innovation diplomacy should build on and/or combine the fields of international relations with its orientation on power, and innovation policy with its orientation on economic opportunities and learning. The importance of national economic interests is growing and puts issues like trade in high tech products, intellectual property ownership and protection, and standardization on the foreign policy agenda (Leijten 2017). In most countries, innovation policies are seen as integral to economic policy and, because of the link with knowledge, often form constituent parts of science and education policies. This also reflects the collaboration-competition duality, which characterizes innovation policy (Leijten 2017). Sussex (2011) focused on understanding and mapping the linkages and tensions between science diplomacy and innovation policy, aiming to highlight potential future directions for science diplomacy taking the increasing importance of innovation into account.

Diplomacy and Its Various Tracks Traditionally, diplomacy is defined as the application of intelligence and the conduct of relations between states by peaceful means, such as negotiation and persuasion.1 Diplomacy is carried out by government officials, including diplomats, who negotiate treaties, trade policies, and other international agreements. In that context, it deals with power and how states can maintain or balance it in relation to other states. Diplomacy still focuses largely on power as a zero-sum resource, which discourages a more integrative or cooperative approach.2 Diplomacy can occur in different forms, or “tracks”, which engage different stakeholders. Track 1 refers to traditional diplomacy, carried out by

1

GDL 2025: Diplomacy 4.0, Strategy Paper, https://global-diplomacy-lab.org/about/strategy/, accessed on 25 April 2021. 2 Ibid.

Creativity in Diplomacy

69

diplomats in an official capacity, representing their states. Back-channel diplomacy, or track 2, involves diplomats and non-traditional actors in unofficial, informal and/or secret interactions. Track 3 refers to people-topeople exchange, with unofficial third parties from diverse backgrounds working together. Why is there a need for alternate forms of diplomacy in practice? Track 1.5 dialogues are conversations that include a mix of government officials who participate in an unofficial capacity as well as non-governmental experts. Track 2 diplomacy brings together unofficial representatives on both sides with no government participation. Neither track 1.5 nor track 2 discussions carry the official weight of traditional diplomacy as they are not bilateral government-to-government meetings. What they offer is a private, open environment for individuals to build trust and engage in conversations that their official counterparts sometimes cannot or will not do, and discuss possible solutions (Staats, Walsh and Tucci, 2019). While track 3 diplomacy is a grassroots initiative that helps promote trust among peoples, it often suffers, in terms of effectiveness, because they usually do not have transfer mechanisms to feed back into official channels. Ultimately, multi-track diplomacy serves the following purposes. First, it can help to improve diversity and inclusion by incorporating grassroots and civil society participation when these groups have otherwise been excluded. Second, it can support peace processes by maintaining a channel of communication when officials are not speaking to one another. Third, it can be used as a forum for discussing tough or sensitive policy issues that two or more countries are endeavoring to address. Track 1.5 dialogues provide a platform for government officials to discuss difficult issues in their personal capacity, going beyond government talking points and exploring new ideas under the Chatham House rule. These closeddoor discussions help policymakers better understand the interests of the other actors and get a clearer picture of how their policy initiatives are perceived by their foreign counterparts. Track 1.5 dialogues also provide an opportunity to solicit feedback on “trial balloon” policy ideas and alternative approaches, so that they could be further refined and improved upon before feeding into official channels.3 In the event that the official track 1 breaks down, a track 1.5 platform provides an invaluable channel through which policymakers can continue to share views in a private, unofficial setting.

3

Ibid.

70

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

For track 2 dialogues, despite the absence of government officials, this platform allows for a deeper understanding of positions and perceptions as non-governmental experts share their independent and personal views in ways that can later feed into the policy process. Such efforts could be critical to advancing negotiations when parties are not yet committed to a process, or during negotiations when parties are looking for alternative ideas to overcome an impasse.4 These participants are usually familiar with the positions of their respective governments but are not expected to assume and/or defend those policy positions in the dialogue. The absence of government representatives may lead to more open discussions with a greater likelihood of breaking through a difficult impasse. Further, track 2 dialogues may also function as a secondary channel of communication that could help build trust between the same group of participants over a period of time.5 Track 2 processes that are more successful have the following factors in common.6 First, they consider the importance of diverse stakeholders. Second, they work to fill in the gaps of the track 1 process. Third, they address power asymmetry among participants. Fourth, they manage participants’ expectations. Fifth, they establish and implement “transfer” mechanisms viz. the influential participants within a track 2 dialogue and the official mediators of the track 1 process can often serve as effective transfer channels. They channel the information and ideas developed within the groups to more formal processes, for example with official actors through closed-door briefings or confidential memos, or to the public through speeches, op-eds, interviews or public consultations. It may be worth highlighting that both tracks 1.5 and 2 dialogues are most successful when they are connected to the formal policy process via transfer mechanisms.7 To increase the utility of these tracks, government participants should take their key learnings back to their respective agencies with nongovernment participants encouraged to share their insights with government officials.8

4

Ibid. Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 5

Creativity in Diplomacy

71

The Global Diplomacy and Diplomacy 4.0 In 2015, the Global Diplomacy Lab (GDL) was founded to advance more inclusive and agile formats of diplomacy and international cooperation to deal with cross-border and global challenges. The GDL is advocating for a global ecosystem characterized by mutual accountability, respect and inclusiveness to deliver positive transformational change. For this to happen, the GDL has established the following strategy: In an increasingly complex global environment, more interconnected and fragmented at the same time, diplomacy must evolve to a more inclusive mindset, oriented to face common challenges via collaboration. In a positive sum game, the GDL believes that all parties involved can benefit. While states remain at the center of power in the international system, non-state actors, striving for influence, have emerged. In foreign policy, government-to-government relations alone cannot keep pace with the profound political, economic, social, and technological transformations. In this context, the emergence of an intermediate space, which links the local with the global, stands out and is shaped by local governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), foundations, companies, cities, who participate and influence decisions that affect international policy.9

The GDL’s Methodology and Processes The GDL utilizes innovative methodologies to reconcile the interests of all stakeholders, builds trust, allowing governments to operate as sovereign actors and simultaneously, leverage the influence and potential of other actors as a new track to achieve the SDGs. The GDL calls this “Diplomacy 4.0”. The core of Diplomacy 4.0 is to link global and local opportunities and challenges through various inter-sectoral events.10 The GDL catalyzes inclusive diplomacy and drives global and local change through a member-driven approach, diversity of thought and methodologies, resulting in institutional and human impact. The GDL develops innovative approaches and improves capacities amongst traditional and non-traditional diplomats, at a personal and

9

Ibid. Ibid.

10

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

72

institutional level, to collaborate and design innovative responses to global and local challenges for sustainable development. The GDL achieves this by11: (i) Creating a community of diverse members from governmental, civil society, the academia and business, and building on their capacities, fostering mutual learning and thought leadership, and catalyzing action in their own environment. (ii) Leveraging the knowledge and experience of its diverse membership to support and advise organizations around the world through innovative methods to address their development challenges. The GDL’s modus operandi is to have creative professionals from various fields – both traditional and non-traditional diplomats - coming together and exploring new tools of communication to co-create and design inclusive and impactful responses, based on a thorough and multifaceted understanding of international phenomena. The outcomes are more inclusive and agile formats of diplomacy and international cooperation to deal with cross-border and global challenges. There are transfer mechanisms in place to feed back to the respective governments, however informally. The GDL is documenting the learnings from the co-creation and cofacilitation processes from the various Labs, including getting buy-in from local partners on the ground, the creation and implementation of pilot studies and any prototypes as a result of the Labs. The resulting body of knowledge can be of significant value beyond the immediate scope of the GDL. The documentation of the GDL’s learnings including on cross-sector collaboration can be a driver for innovative thinking and practice in international politics. This includes analyses on what is needed in terms of competences, capacities, and resources to formulate the new agenda for local and global collective action. The GDL is interested in a form of storytelling, of documenting the processes that are co-created and collaborative. In the end, it is not about adding up the individual perspectives, but about creating a collective new point of view, oriented towards problem-solving and practice, rather than theory. The handbook will not only show the results of Diplomacy 4.0 through its Labs but also the methodology behind this new approach to international collective action as well as agenda setting. The platform is aimed at bridging the gap between theory and practice. As such, the published documentation of the GDL’s work is aimed at 11

Ibid.

Creativity in Diplomacy

73

development practitioners, diplomats, policy makers, scholars, and students undertaking development, international relations and/or global studies at both the undergraduate as well as graduate levels. The GDL puts forward views from practitioners that reflect on theory as well as innovative practices, and can stimulate practical actions.

The GDL’s Impact Evaluation While impact always occurs at various levels, the GDL focuses on the following two areas of impact creation to improve effectiveness, efficiency and agility12: To create impact at the individual level, the GDL implements events and activities at regular intervals for all members to (i) enhance their understanding of salient global issues; (ii) improve their intercultural, interpersonal, discursive, leadership and problem-solving skills; and (iii) stimulate mutual learning and build their capacities to apply innovative methods. Others include workshops and online sessions organized by members for the GDL community. To create impact at the institutional level, the GDL invites what is called “challenges” from external institutions on an issue that needs to be resolved. The GDL also implements structured advisory projects such as GDL Lab formats with smaller teams selected from its membership and the challenge holders. In these projects, members contribute their knowledge, practice their skills and transfer their learnings back to the GDL community. The GDL also contributes to external events by providing thought leadership through its diverse members’ expertise. All activities implemented in the framework of the GDL must fulfil a set of standardized criteria which include impact logic, methodology, funding responsibility and relevance to the issue of diplomacy. Finally, the GDL implements methods and processes to measure the impact of all its activities and ensure continuous learning and improvement. To connect both areas of impact creation, the GDL provides a platform to bring the members together regularly, to strengthen the community, including via mutual learning but also to introduce new projects such as decentralized labs, discuss lessons learnt from ongoing and past activities, and to discuss new topics.

12

Ibid.

74

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

Creativity: A New Approach for Diplomacy The GDL’s work is unique in that it tackles a new subject area in terms of creative and innovative approaches vis-à-vis co-creating and co-facilitating discussions in the context of diplomacy. The platform puts forward a new approach through Diplomacy 4.0, which is more inclusive than the current tracks, and through reflecting on its iteration in practice. There is little in the literature on practicing a more inclusive form of diplomacy as the GDL does by involving non-traditional actors. The multistakeholder concept is known and widely applied such as in the context of working for the UN (Alejo 2019) and in the context of democracy (Gleckman 2018, and Kurbalija and Katrandjiev 2006). However, the multistakeholder approach in the literature is often focused on government-to-government relations. The GDL’s Diplomacy 4.0 is focused on expanding the circle of participants to non-governmental and non-traditional political actors. Second, there is not much in the literature concerning the co-facilitation process in diplomacy. While facilitation is normal in peace processes and also within the context of UN processes such as the negotiations that produced the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Kamau, Chasek and O’Connor 2018), what sets out the GDL from the norm is its twin foci on co-facilitation and co-creation. There is some literature on co-facilitation in the educational context (Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017) but scant information on doing so in a diplomatic setting. Co-facilitation is defined as when more than one individual is involved in leading, planning and/or designing a discussion or event. Cocreation of processes is more common in diplomacy including in the science diplomacy framework (Aukes et al. 2020) and public diplomacy, as evidenced by the ample literature in this space. Co-creation is defined by the Institut de Diplomatie Publique as the collaborative development of public diplomacy values - concepts, solutions, services - together with members, observers, experts and stakeholders. Co-creation thus is a form of collaborative innovation where ideas are shared and improved upon together.

A Case Study from the Global Diplomacy Lab: The Demographic Dividend One of the GDL’s key strengths is its documentation process, reporting on the key learnings and takeaways from the various Labs. Here, we come to a case

Creativity in Diplomacy

75

study on the issue of the demographic dividend which the GDL’s Labs in Accra, Ghana and Berlin, Germany examined in June 2019 and December 2019 respectively. Reproduced, with permission from the GDL, are various sections from the report on the two Labs:

Foreword13 Today, the West African country of Niger has a population of 23 million. According to UN projections, it will reach 66 million by 2050. Within 30 years, its population will almost triple. With a world record fertility rate of 7.2 children per woman, Niger is an extreme example, but not untypical for the demographic dynamics on the African continent. Over the coming 30 years, Africa’s population is expected to double from today’s 1.2 billion to 2.4 billion. For some, Africa’s youthful and rapidly growing population raises hopes of a demographic dividend: this opportunity opens up when the number of young people of working age is large, in comparison to those who depend on support – in other words, young children and the elderly. With the right social and economic conditions in place, such an age structure can lead to accelerated economic growth as young people join the workforce in increasing numbers while the birth rate declines due to improved access to education and reproductive health. However, a fast-growing population also poses a great challenge to social security, health and education systems, and can breed conflict over resources. “If these problems are not tackled, the high birth rate will lead to poverty and forced migration because society can’t cope with these challenges,” says GDL Dean Ruprecht Polenz. “Therefore, both sides, Germany and African states, have an interest in addressing this question.” How to help harness Africa’s demographic dividend via international collaboration was the “challenge” of the 2019 Curriculum. It meant breaking new ground in several ways: for the first time, the GDL ventured into Africa by organizing this year’s Incubator Lab in Accra, Ghana’s capital. For the first time, a leading partner of the platform, the German Federal Foreign Office, assumed the role of the “challenge holder”. 13

The full report “Challenge: the Global Power Shifts – Political Inclusion for the Next Generation, Enghusen, M. and Sattler, J. (Eds.) is available here: https://global-diplomacylab.org/files/gdl_2019-report-web.pdf.

76

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

To make true on its promise of adopting a more inclusive approach to international diplomacy, the GDL worked with a great variety of local partners, both in Berlin and Accra, from all strata of society: GDL members were invited to Ghana’s parliament, visited a hip business hub for aspiring entrepreneurs, and a project for street children. They talked to politicians and artists, met students and academics, and learned from experts and activists supporting street children. The question of how to realize Africa’s demographic dividend touches upon a wide range of factors such as governance, economic development, health and education, gender roles, traditional values and moral codes, just to name a few. As if that were not complex enough, among many stakeholders on the African continent, memories of European colonialism and racism are painfully present and shape the perception and discussion of the issues at hand, as many discussions during the Labs were to demonstrate. The complexity of the challenge was attested to by the many intense discussions during the Labs that would often continue long after the last official point on the agenda had been addressed. The 2019 Labs were a daring enterprise: testing new locations, formats, partners and methodologies. They were, in other words, a great experiment – just as befits a true Lab.

Introduction For its 2019 Curriculum, the GDL set itself an ambitious goal: with the support of its challenge holder, the Federal Foreign Office of Germany, GDL’s members were to tackle the topic of international collaboration to realize the potential of Africa’s demographic dividend. Taking into account European and African voices, official actors as well as NGOs and civil society, the GDL was to work on an issue crucial to reaching the ambitious targets of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, specifically SDG 17 viz. strengthening partnerships. 38 GDL members from more than 20 different countries first got together in Accra, Ghana in June 2019 for the Incubator Lab. With the aim of testing methodologies for ongoing collaboration throughout the year’s Curriculum in mind, the first ever Lab in an African country offered the opportunity for the GDL to explore the challenges of the demographic dividend on the ground. In Accra, contact was made with a variety of local actors involved in tackling the issue: GDL members visited institutions such as the National Population Council and the Street Children Empowerment Foundation to learn

Creativity in Diplomacy

77

more about the complexities of population dynamics, about how the demographic dividend can strengthen economic development, and about how this process can be supported institutionally. These experiences led participants to critically evaluate their previous knowledge about the topic as well as to reflect on the local organizations’ strategies, aims and long-term projects. They raised questions such as: how can local actors become involved in larger-scale, international discussions about the demographic dividend? How can institutions such as the Federal Foreign Office support this process; how can existing partnerships on the ground be strengthened? Having learned about the demographic dividend and its potential from different points of view in Ghana, as well as in a series of virtual sessions between July and October 2019, the November 2019 Impact Lab brought participants together in Berlin, Germany. This gathering enabled the group to collaborate on developing a variety of strategic approaches to the set challenge. During the Impact Lab, GDL members, actors involved in collaborations with African countries in the Federal Foreign Office, as well as in other institutional contexts and civil society, worked together on suggestions that would eventually be of help to the challenge holder in the efforts to bring non-traditional stakeholders to the table when talking about the demographic dividend, or when seeking out new ways to work with the population data available. Many debates during the Impact Lab touched upon matters of trust and of the post-colonial legacy that play a role in the negotiations of today. However, they also productively addressed the question of how discussions about the demographic dividend are potentially impacted by the composition of the delegation at the table. This report is one of the results of the 2019 GDL Curriculum. Throughout, it offers not so much a chronological narrative of the Accra and Berlin Labs, but rather, various insights into collaboration strategies within the GDL and into exploring a challenge from a variety of perspectives. It provides a look at the dynamic processes which take place when an issue such as the demographic dividend is addressed by a group of professionals from different national, cultural, religious and employment contexts and reflects a type of diplomacy that transcends official networks and also takes place around a shared dinner table in Accra or during a gathering with local activists in a Berlin community center. Starting from the outcome – the set of suggestions provided to the challenge holder at the end of the process – the report looks back at perspectives on the demographic dividend and its negotiation in an international context, and then moves on to explore the challenge from the

78

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

political to the cultural arenas. The introduction of partners and places as well as of the GDL’s unique methodology make for a detailed insight into the cocreation process that is specific to the GDL. Accompanying GDL members into the field – from Accra’s projects for street children to Berlin’s African Quarter, where the city’s post-colonial legacy is visible – enables the reader to learn more about the multiple challenges the group encountered throughout its 2019 Curriculum. Finally, the conclusion and reflection at the end provide an outlook on the future: what do the findings of the 2019 Labs mean for opening up collaboration practices between traditional and non-traditional actors in the context of Africa’s demographic dividend? Which changes will the debates over postcolonialism, power and diversity bring for the GDL? And what do its members take away from the process?’

Power Dynamics at Play The simulation at the Impact Lab in Berlin revealed how power dynamics shape conversations and offered insights into what a more inclusive diplomacy would require.

By Sonja Peteranderl International collaboration in a nutshell: The GDL Impact Lab simulation challenged the participants to develop an approach for facilitating a dialogue of an expert working group about the Demographic Dividend. External experts from the African diaspora in Berlin were invited to join the conversation. Conflicts that arose during the group discussions showed how asymmetric power structures and unspoken conflicts can prevent real cooperation. Fighting Stereotypes: Africa is not a Country The task of the simulation to discuss the Demographic Dividend referring to “Nambia” (a fictitious country with demographic values drawn from existing countries) and “Euroland” (representing a Western country) was met with skepticism by the experts – it triggered the problem that Westerners see and treat Africa as “one country.” Africa is a diverse continent, but yet the public discourse, media and also stakeholders participating in global diplomacy might insist on referring to it as one uniform place. Generalized assumptions, clichés and superficial

Creativity in Diplomacy

79

debates deny historical, cultural and economic peculiar ities between, but also within the countries on the African continent. The experts invited to the GDL session also stressed that the experience of a single person from one African country cannot be used to make valid statements about the needs and challenges of all population groups and stakeholders in that country.

Predefined Mindsets: The Form of Cooperation reflects Asymmetrical Power Dynamics A complicated methodology and two pre-formulated work questions were presented to the external experts. This reflected the common phenomenon that the donors often predefine the problem in international collaboration projects and therefore also frame the possible pathways to a solution – without considering the opinions and real needs of the locals and ex perts. “If we feel unable to transform the question and the process, then the conversation cannot go any further,” said one of the experts at the GDL session, expressing her frustration with the one-sided process. The imposed top-down process became another example for the discrimination Black people have to deal with on a daily basis. “As Black women, we always feel like space invaders, like we should not be there,” an expert explained. “That causes frustration, because these issues are important and we have a lot to say.” Small aggressions such as not being treated as equal team members mount up over time and build into a culture where Black participants feel they are regarded only as quotas, but not heard, recognized nor accepted. The experts suggested that experts like themselves should be approached without a predefined mindset and process, that experts should be invited to join in the early stages, even before new projects have started, and that local grassroots organizations should be contacted and not just asked to confirm assumptions, but invited to work on the definition of the challenges together. The African diaspora in Germany could be a useful resource for the Federal Foreign Office to engage with – members of the diaspora can serve as cultural brokers. The Federal Foreign Office should also tap more into local knowledge in its own structures – local staff in the embassies are in direct contact with a variety of local stakeholders and know the challenges first-hand, but their insights seldom flow back to the Head Office, for example. An improved internal knowledge management could tap this potential. In the long run, over-hauling recruiting processes at the Federal Foreign Office in order to diversify the workforce, but also hiring local consultants from

80

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

African countries or the diaspora for delegations can help to make teams more diverse and enable better informed processes.

Tackling Distrust: The Context of International Collaboration Processes is often Invisible The colonial past, but also current exploitative practices such as corruption and unfair business practices of foreign companies abroad, negatively impact confidence in international co-operation, but are rarely addressed in concrete terms. Challenges such as the Demographic Dividend are linked to structural problems, partly resulting from the colonial past, but also tied to current injustices such as the corruption or exploitation of African countries by foreign companies. Some foreign companies evade taxes by falsely declaring the amount of extracted raw materials to be lower than it actually is, thereby minimizing the revenue of African states and distorting economic performance, for example. Framing problems such as the demographic dividend as an “African problem” simplifies the challenge it represents. Acknowledging and addressing existing problems can promote trust in international cooperation. But trust building must also take the form of policy changes that go beyond lip service. “We need to be real – and we need to be ready to feel uncomfortable,” as one of the experts put it.

Partners and Places From the Parliament to the Street: Collaboration with Local Partners To fulfil its commitment to see the bigger picture and include unheard voices, the GDL worked with a great variety of local partners from all spheres of society. Collaboration with local partners lies at the core of the GDL principles: It means to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders, to include voices that in traditional diplomacy often remain unheard, and therefore to gain a deeper understanding of the issues at stake. This principle is closely aligned with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No. 17 which calls for partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil society in order to realize sustainable development.

Creativity in Diplomacy

81

The Importance of Local Stakeholders: Building Networks In 2019, local partners were given an especially prominent role during the Incubator Lab in Accra in order to help GDL members immerse themselves in the local context. Many of the members set foot on sub-Saharan Africa for the first time. Supported by the Incubator Lab’s Host Firmin Adjahossou, the GDL partnered with stakeholders from government, business, civil society and academia. Among them was the African Parliamentarians’ Network Against Corruption (APNAC), founded in 1999 by parliamentarians from different African countries who identified corruption as one of the most important factors hampering sustainable economic development. Fabrice Fifonsi, Executive Director of APNAC, collaborated closely with the GDL throughout the Incubator Lab and contributed valuable insights. A second partner was Ghana’s parliament: its first deputy speaker, the Honorary Joseph Osei Owusu, welcomed the participants with a speech on their first day in Accra; on the second day, GDL members visited the parliament. “We engaged Ghana’s parliament because we wanted those who are in charge of policy at the national level to be a part of the process,” explains Incubator Lab Host Firmin Adjahossou. “It helped us to include the political dimension in our discussions.” Field Visits: Including Further Expertise To offer further valuable input, the program included field visits to two important research institutions: The National Population Council, which advises Ghana’s government on all matters concerning population dynamics, and the Centre for Democratic Development, an independent think tank, “to bring in expertise and analysis,” explains Firmin. To learn about some of the most delicate social issues first-hand, a third field trip was organized to visit the Street Children Empowerment Foundation which helps street children to attend school. “The demographic dividend is affecting youth strongly,” says Firmin, “therefore we wanted a youth-focused organization to be involved.” Along similar lines, youth and education were the overarching topics of a fourth field trip to Sopodiva Training Centre, where students from francophone African countries improve their English skills. To enable an even more detailed impression, the Incubator Lab featured a speaker from the African Union, Daniel Batidam, as well as visits to the DuBois Memorial Centre for Pan-African Culture and to Impact Hub Accra, a space for aspiring young entrepreneurs. “The Incubator Lab was a great success,” Firmin concluded. “The local partners were very happy about the collaboration. And the members learned a lot from them.”

82

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

Incorporating Tradition After the official end of the Incubator Lab, a small group of GDL members was able to hear an additional voice which is usually excluded from international collaboration: GDL member Theresa Carrington invited Chief Paul Asana Agoo, a traditional local authority, to Accra to meet those lucky few GDL members who had not yet departed. Chief Agoo is the senior divisional chief of the Zaare traditional area which has approximately 20,000 inhabitants. Theresa knows him through her social enterprise “Ten by Three” which has been working with the chief to reduce poverty in Ghana for over a decade. In front of a small group of GDL members, Chief Agoo talked about life in Ghana’s traditional communities and his hopes for his country and answered the many curious questions of this eager listeners. “Chief Agoo was willing to drop everything to meet with GDL members,” says Theresa, “because he felt by sharing details about local power structures, GDL members would be better equipped to positively impact Ghana.”

Methodology From Your Secret Friend, with Love Fostering a sense of community is not just a goal in itself: It is the basis for trustful collaboration. Between discussions and group work, participants of the 2019 Labs experienced moments of cheerful surprise: A piece of chocolate on their desk, a flower in their bag, a greeting card from their “secret friend.” This is one of many initiatives that helps foster the strong sense of community characteristic of the GDL: On the first day of both the Incubator and the Impact Lab, each participant was assigned another member as their “secret friend,” to anonymously sweeten their experience with small surprises and gestures. “This was not just to make everyone feel good – even though the initiative definitely achieved this goal – but to foster a sense of community and an atmosphere of collaboration and mutual appreciation and trust in which everyone feels safe to express their opinions,” explains GDL and Advisory Council member Julia Spinelli. “Such an atmosphere is the basis for a truly open and honest discussion and for the exchange of viewpoints and ideas – one of the most important goals of the GDL.” Social Forms: From the ‘Open Diary’ to a Night on the Dancefloor Another of these small but meaningful initiatives adding to the Lab was the open diary during the Incubator Lab in Accra: GDL members were

Creativity in Diplomacy

83

encouraged to collect impressions from the day to contribute to an “open diary wall,” a collective, creative diary reflecting the great variety of perceptions and emotions among the participants. In addition, social gatherings were an integral part of both the Incubator and the Impact Lab and have a long tradition in the GDL. In Accra, GDL members were invited to the German Ambassador’s residence, where, to the sound of groovy Ghanaian beats in the background, they transformed the carefully cultivated garden into a dance floor; in Berlin, on the last evening of the Impact Lab, they gathered for the final party in the Literature Café and Craft Beer Bar “The Word Berlin,” and listened to the Afro-German trio “3 Women and The Bass” before hitting the dance floor again.

Building Trust, Co-creating Ideas Social gatherings like these are not just fun. They also provide valuable space to reflect on the events of the day, continue discussions that had started earlier, develop new connections and deepen existing ones. Together with initiatives like the “secret friend,” they help foster an environment of mutual trust which is the basis for fruitful collaboration. “Only when everyone involved feels safe to express their thoughts and opinions, nobody holds back out of fear of disapproval or negative repercussions,” says Spinelli. “And only in this way, will truly innovative and disruptive ideas be developed.”

Simulating Diplomacy, even when It Hurts In one of the most challenging sessions of the Impact Lab, participants teamed up with external experts to develop innovative models for collaboration between Germany and African countries. The second day of the Impact Lab in Berlin was hosted by the Challenge Holder, the German Federal Foreign Office. After the colorful locations GDL members had become used to in the course of the 2019 Lab, including a hip innovation hub in Accra and a vegan café in Berlin, the plain, white conference room in the Foreign Office provided an unusually austere atmosphere. For the key session of the day, the facilitator team consisting of GDL members Elizabeth Maloba, Patrick Mpedzisi and Stefan Cibian had developed a complex methodology aimed at fostering fresh approaches for collaboration and, in parallel, testing group dynamics in different settings. The overarching question of the session was: How might we design a framework that enables international collaboration to harness the demographic dividend?

84

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

The three facilitators divided the participants into four groups according to principles that imitate a variety of real-life settings: One group consisted mostly of working for governments, while other groups were dominated by members from civil society or business. All were asked to develop their own methodology for the subsequent discussion. For the second part of the exercise, the groups were joined by external experts from a variety of fields: among them were Koffi Nomenyo, employee at KfW, Germany’s stateowned development bank, and the founder of Africa-Germany Young Leaders Program Building Bridges e.V.; Dr Tanja Kiziak, deputy manager of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development; Maithy Moune, comanaging director of the Each One Teach One e.V. Afro-Diasporic Library in Berlin and founder of the Black German networking platform Black Business Matters; and Nora Kiefer, a scientific advisor for the Deutsche Afrika Stiftung (German Africa Foundation).

Speaking to the Challenges: Working with Complexity and Uncertainty The task was a challenging exercise for many participants. Several groups decided to break the complex question down into something more manageable, such as: How can we improve collaboration between Germany and African states in order to harness Africa’s demographic dividend? Many participants also struggled with the rather complex methodology adapted from design thinking. “As a method itself, it was interesting, I have never worked with it before,” says GDL member Hatem Salama from Egypt. “But it would have been important to make clearer in the beginning what was expected from the participants.” Nevertheless, he took away helpful new impulses from the session: “I will try the method in my own line of work.” The road to the final results that were presented on the following day proved winding and stony at times. This was due to the complexity of the question and the methodology as well as the controversial and sensitive issues coming up in the course of the discussions: Do European states pursue a hidden agenda in their dealings with African countries as some GDL members from African countries feared? Does traditional diplomacy exclude important voices from civil society and traditional power structures, as others suggested? Is the selection process for diplomats inclusive enough towards minorities? These and other questions sparked intense and sometimes heated debates. Keeping up the Dialogue Yet it was precisely these controversies from which many participants took away their most important lessons. “Some perspectives can be very far from

Creativity in Diplomacy

85

our own views,” says GDL member Trini Saona. “But I think it is important that we strive to maintain an open dialogue, given the vast diversity that we have in this group. We should always bear in mind that, at the GDL, we have embarked together on a journey of continuous learning – this is the Lab part of it.”

Reflection and Conclusion Challenges and Questions for 2020 and Beyond The 2019 Labs saw some heated debates and critical feedback. For the GDL, this was a great opportunity – to reflect and to learn, to improve and to evolve. For most participants, the 2019 Labs were an intense experience: next to many cheerful hours, there were moments of frustration and irritation, intense discussions and, rarely, outright conflict. Given the complexities and sensibilities surrounding this year’s challenge and the huge diversity of the participants involved, this was hardly surprising. To name just one example, a dispute arose regarding the relevance of mutual trust in development cooperation: while many African GDL members shared the assessment of Incubator Lab Host Firmin Adjahossou that “trust between states and institutions is a big issue, we have to do more to improve it if we really want to collaborate,” some representatives from the German side preferred to focus on the content of international collaboration. It was only one of several disagreements that, on the one hand, may have made the process harder, but on the other hand demonstrated how important it is to address these openly instead of hiding them behind a polite diplomatic statement. Staying true to its member-driven nature, the GDL places great importance on feedback and constructive criticism. Feedback rounds were held both in Accra and in Berlin. Each time, members and the Challenge Holder participated. On these occasions, important points and questions were raised: 



When it comes to dedicating time and resources, what is the right balance between methodology and the actual content of the challenge? How much content-related preparation is necessary for each member to be able to tackle a complex and often unfamiliar topic?

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

86 

  

How do we avoid an overuse of convenient buzzwords instead of concrete and possibly controversial proposals – and what counts as a buzzword anyway? How can we ensure and measure impact? How do we align expectations between the GDL and the Challenge Holder? How does the GDL deal with acute conflict situations?

Towards the Future of the GDL The discussion about these questions has already begun in various forums and among members themselves. “One of the options that are currently being discussed is to develop a charter for the GDL that enshrines its basic values,” says GDL member Julia Sattler. “Even though it may have been unpleasant, I see something positive in the fact that discussions and conflicts occured during the Lab because this proves the need to develop a mechanism for dealing with these issues.” Experimenting is a creative and sometimes messy process that involves lots of trial and error. To get innovative, fresh results, people need the freedom and space for this creative process to play out, with all affiliated risks and uncertainties. The strength of the GDL is that it provides this space and is open to constant learning and evolving – a laboratory in the full sense of the word.

Conclusion The 2019 Curriculum was intense and insightful, inspiring and challenging. It generated fresh solutions for old problems and raised new questions for the GDL to reflect upon. In many aspects, the 2019 Labs may have been the most challenging ones in the GDL’s history. The task was complex, the topic loaded with sensitivities and controversies. Yet, it is specifically the challenges that lead one to grow and evolve. And at the end of a long, intense and sometimes arduous process, GDL members produced concrete proposals to the Federal Foreign Office on how to improve collaboration with African states and how to help harness the demographic dividend. Staying true to its identity as a laboratory, the GDL experimented with new formats and methodologies to make full use of the great diversity of its members, spark their creativity and encourage co-creation across geographical, professional, and ideological divides. Different facilitators worked with simulations, artistic tasks and design thinking in order to open up

Creativity in Diplomacy

87

minds and hearts, to encourage the participants to leave trodden paths, to brainstorm freely, to put their wildest ideas on the table, look at them from different angles, combine these, modify them and thus create something new.

Reaching High for Change The goals of the GDL are ambitious. Tackling Africa’s demographic development and turning it into a dividend might be one of the most pressing tasks of the 21st century, and certainly one of the most complex ones. It was therefore not surprising that at one point during the Impact Lab the question came up: are we trying to achieve too much? Are we reaching too high? One attendee answered these questions with a resounding “no”: GDL Dean Ruprecht Polenz. In his closing speech on the last day of the Impact Lab, he praised the proposals developed during the Lab and reminded the participants that even seemingly small initiatives can have a great impact: “If only ten cities in Germany would be twinned with ten cities in African countries,” he said, referring to the concept of Nano Diplomacy that had been developed during the Lab, “and if they were to start thinking about how to harness the demographic dividend, this would be a tremendous success.” He ended up his speech with a quote from American anthropologist Margaret Mead that spoke to the hearts of many who were listening to him: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Conclusion The Global Diplomacy Lab, through its various Labs, including the case study in this chapter, has demonstrated that a new creative approach towards diplomacy is warranted and needed to ensure a more inclusive diplomacy that includes non-traditional actors, as well as leveraging co-facilitation and cocreation methodologies to achieve this. With the increasing complexity and intersectionality of today’s real world challenges vis-à-vis diplomacy, including non-state actors such as cities, local governments, the civil society and corporates, a new approach as propagated by the Global Diplomacy Lab viz. Diplomacy 4.0 is needed to evolve international relations and ensure that there is a nexus between local and global developments.

88

Eirliani Abdul Rahman

References Albro, Robert. January 24, 2013. “Collaborative/Creative Diplomacy/Partnerships.” USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Accessed April 24, 2021. https:// uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/collaborativecreative-diplomacypartnerships. Alejo, Antonio. “Contemporary Diplomacy, Global Politics, and Nongovernmental Actors: Dilemmas of the Multistakeholder Mechanism of Participation in Mexico.” 2019. Politics & Policy (Statesboro, Ga.), 47.1. Pages 105-26. Aukes, Ewert J., Matamoros, Gonzalo O., Kuhlmann, Stefan, and Ebrahimi, Sana H., “Towards Effective Science Diplomacy Practice.” University of Twente Policy Brief, no. 2. Accessed on April 28, 2021. Bound, Kirsten. “Innovating Together? The Age of Innovation Diplomacy”, The Global Innovation Index 2016, WIPO, Pages 91-95. Accessed on April 21, 2021. Cambridge Dictionary. 2021. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ creativity Accessed on 24 April 2021. Gleckman, Harris. 2018. Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge / Harris Gleckman. London; New York: Routledge. The Global Diplomacy Lab. “GDL 2025: Diplomacy 4.0” https://global-diplomacylab.org/about/strategy/. Accessed on April 25, 2021. The Global Diplomacy Lab. “Global Diplomacy Lab 2019. Challenge: Global Power Shifts: Political and Economic Inclusion for the Next Generation. Collaborating to Realise the Potential of the Demographic Dividend.” https://global-diplomacylab.org/labs/11th-lab/. Accessed on April 25, 2021. Griset, Pascal. 2020. “Innovation Diplomacy: A New Concept for Ancient Practices?” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Volume 15, Issue 3. Pages 383-397. Accessed April 20, 2021. doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-BJA10036. Kamau, Macharia, Chasek, Pamela and O’Connor, David. 2018. Transforming Multilateral Democracy: the Inside Story of the Sustainable Development Goals. London: Routledge. “We Co-Create our own Project of Public Diplomacy from Scratch.” Institut de Diplomatie Publique. https://www.publicdiplomacy.online/post/we-co-create-our-own-projectof-public-diplomacy-from-scratch. Accessed on April 28, 2021. Kurbalija, Jevon, and Katrandijiev, Valentin. 2006. Multistakeholder Diplomacy. Challenges and Opportunities. Geneva: DiploFoundation. Leijten, Jos. 2017. “Exploring the Future of Innovation Diplomacy.” European Journal of Futures Research, 5: 20. Accessed April 20, 2021. doi.org/10.1007/s40309-017-01228. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy, Dvorakova, Lucie S., Groenendijk, Lauren J., and Matthews, Kelly E. “Idealism, Conflict, Leadership and Labels: Reflections on Co-Facilitation as Partnership Practice.” Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, Issue 21. Spring 2017. Accessed April 24, 2021. Staats, J., Walsh, J. and Tucci, R. July 31, 2019. “A Primer on Multi-Track Diplomacy: Does it Work?” United States Institute of Peace. https://www.usip.org/ publications/2019/07/primer-multi-track-diplomacy-how-does-it-work. Accessed on April 25, 2021.

Creativity in Diplomacy

89

Sussex, Matthew. 2011. “The Importance of being Earnest? Avoiding the Pitfalls of ‘Creative Middle Diplomacy’”. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Volume 65, Issue 5, Pages 545-562. Accessed April 20, 2021. doi.org/10.1080/ 10357718.2011.610436.

Chapter 5

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding: The Soundscape of Agios Lavrentios, Greece Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

Abstract Creativity and senses are two central principles of perceiving landscape. Place branding is the means to establish a strong place identity attached to its landscape. In this paper, the notions of creativity, sensory landscape (sensoryscape) and place branding are analysed, aiming to identify an emerging soundscape that derives from creativity. The settlement of Agios Lavrentios in Thessaly, Greece is selected to be the case study where creativity, soundscape and place branding are combined and analysed. The purpose of the research is to determine the sensoryscape that comes from the synergy between the landscape and the creativity that occurs. The research concludes in how creativity affects the landscape as well as how sensory and creative dimensions can be part of the research into place branding procedures and hence, the sensory branding of a place.

Keywords: Agios Lavrentios/Greece, creativity, place branding/marketing, sensory landscape, soundscape

Corresponding

Author’s Email: [email protected].

In: New Horizons in Creativity Editor: Shulamith Kreitler ISBN: 978-1-68507-751-8 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

92

Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner

Introduction Creativity and senses are two central principles of perceiving landscape that can influence the identity of a place, therefore the practice, as well as the theory, of place branding. In the present chapter, the notions of creativity, sensory landscape (sensoryscape) and place branding are analysed, aiming to identify an emerging soundscape that derives from creativity. Being a relatively unexplored research field, sensory branding is proposed in order for the unique soundscape of a small settlement to enhance its place image. The research presented here is part of a broader research, conducted in the Regional Unit of Magnesia, in Thessaly, central Greece, from October 2016 to May 2017. This chapter focuses on the analysis of the unique creative soundscape of the small traditional settlement of Agios Lavrentios in Mount Pelion investigating how creativity affects the specific sensory landscape through the sense of hearing. Consequently, it is discussed how these two dimensions, sensory and creative, can be part of the research into place branding procedures and, hence, the sensory branding of a place. The settlement of Agios Lavrentios has been chosen because of its creative identity that leads to a unique soundscape and a strong place image. Since the past decade, the image of Agios Lavrentios has been identified with a famous music event that takes place annually. Creativity constitutes the main element of the identity of the settlement: it defines the music event, smaller events that occur during the year and the broader identity of the settlement. Furthermore, sound and the sense of hearing are the most prominent sensory elements that describe the image of Agios Lavrentios. Due to the various notions considered in this research and the quest of answers to multiple questions, the researchers decided to apply combined methods in order to receive outcomes. The most appropriate methods were the combination of observational analysis through the Sensory Landscape Assessment (SLA) tool and semi-structured interviews. The SLA tool was used in order to record and evaluate the frequency of occurrence of the senses of sight, hearing and smell in the settlement, while semi-structured interviews gathered qualitative data, based on the personal experiences of the participants/ users. The main research questions to be answered in this chapter are: a) can creativity contribute to the formation of a soundscape? b) can a soundscape determine the identity of a place? and c) can sensory landscapes be an important factor in place branding techniques? The originality of the chapter

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding

93

lies mainly in the fact that a soundscape is analysed through the SLA tool in Greece and in conjunction with the creativity developed in the settlement. Additionally, the attempt to approach place branding through senses is considered to be an emerging field. The chapter is divided into five sections. After the introduction, the second section analyses the notions of creativity, sensory landscape and more specifically soundscape and place branding as well as their interconnection. The third section analyses the research area, the methodology and the basic data used. The fourth section analyses the results that arise from the preceding analysis, and the conclusions link the elements of creativity, sensory landscape and place branding in the light of the sense of hearing and place identity.

Conceptual Framework: Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding Creativity is defined as the ability to construct anything new, in terms of ideas or physical objects, but is constantly connected to originality, imagination, innovation, usefulness and inventiveness. During the past decades, creativity played a crucial role in determining urban theories, urban policies and urban economy. As Kunzmann (2004) states, creativity has spread as a ‘friendly virus’ in urban planning studies, mostly based on culture. Kunzmann recognized the importance of the pioneering work of Anderson who gave a full account of creativity and urban development using Stockholm as a case study. The specific work did not reach the international readership it deserved, since only a brief summary of his book was published internationally (Andersson, 1987). At the intrernational level, one influential factor has been the seminal work by Landry ([2000] 2008), which refers to the human synergies of creativity with governance and planning. In Landry’s theory, creativity is a concept that concerns the whole of the society being also implicated in the place-making procedure, from the citizen to the leading actors of a place. The above approach leads to the formation of a ‘creative milieu’, an environment with a creative identity, constituted of multiple characteristics, as outlined by Meusburger, Funke, and Wunder (2009, 4): A creative milieu is a possibility or potentiality, not an actuality... Possibility can be an efficient cause only when in contact with mind that acts as a

94

Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner ‘catalytic agent’... Recognizing a possibility earlier than other people do is an important constituent of creativity and competitiveness.

Since then, the notion of creativity has been embedded in many aspects of urban life. The most important overall factor of urban creativity is considered to be culture. However, many more criteria and characteristics have been introduced to the creative environment, while a plethora of studies proposed new aspects of urban creativity. Carta (2007) rephrases Florida’s ([2002] 2012) 3 T’s (talent, tolerance, technology) with his 3 C’s, adding communication and cooperation to the central feature of culture in the sphere of urban creativity. Another characteristic example is that of Landry and Caust (2017), who argued for the need for a turn to creative bureaucracy, in order to walk away from the stiff representation of public forms of governance. The talent found inside public bureaucracies must be unleashed, and more inclusive and participatory methods should be applied. In addition, a new aspect was introduced in regard to the meaning of creative heritage (Schröder, Carta, and Hartmann 2018), identified as an important characteristic of innovation, resilience and cultural creativity. Furthermore, Landry and Murray (2017) argued for the importance of urban psychology in place making, arguing that the city is primarily an emotional experience and that emotions should be taken into account as seriously as hard factors of creativity in an urban environment. This was not the first time Landry referred to the emotional and sensory landscape of the cities. In 2006, he argued for the significance of the sensory landscape of the city, which, in case it is perceived and utilised properly, could lead into actions that could invigorate the urban environment (Landry, 2006) through creativity. The main position is that the city is a ‘living organism existing within a sensory landscape’ (Landry and Murray 2017, 9), and that the culture which determines the creative identity of a place is further determined by its psychology and its emotional and sensory landscape. As mentioned above, throughout the years a plethora of studies presented various characteristics of a creative milieu. Starting from the literature review, the main criteria that identify a creative environment are considered to be: leadership and vision, diversity and expressiveness, tolerance, participation and collaboration, education and research, entrepreneurship, innovation and technology, authenticity and cultural assets, networking and place promotion, quality of life and environmental awareness (Hall 2000; Landry [2000] 2008; Hospers 2003; Florida [2002] 2012; Hartley, Potts, and McDonald 2012; Landry and Hyams 2012; Stano and Węziak-Białowolska 2017). From this

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding

95

point of view, a creative environment is a space for reflection, artistic action, critique, community, sharing and experimenting (Poch 2013). ‘Landscape is composed of not only what lies before our eyes, but what lies within our heads’ (Meinig 1979). Landscape is not just an existing object and it constitutes certainly something more than just scenery; it is the medium that transits the impressions of a place to its observer (Daniel and Boster 1976; Borev 1981). Thus, the notion of landscape is difficult to determine, as it depends on human perception and contains physical and perceptual dimensions. These external variables contribute to the evaluation of the landscape, affecting the image of its basic elements and forming the final image of the observer (Kaplan and Kaplan 1978; Manolidis 2003; Eleftheriadis, Stilianidis, and Paliokas 2007; Plit and Myga-Piątek 2014). People experience landscape in a multi-sensory way, using their sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, deriving, organising and interpreting information received from the environment, as an inherently natural instinct (Scott, Carter, and White 2009; Cassatella 2011; Potocka 2013). The ‘formative experience’ of the landscape, the way that people perceive its image, comes mainly from the landscape representations that emerge in everyday life and not by the ‘stay experience’ in it (Kotionis 2007). The senses mediate ‘the relationship between mind and body, idea and object, self and environment’ (Howes 2006, 122). As Campelo (2011, 2) argues, ‘the sensory is part of our involvement and understanding of the world, which makes it difficult to separate our senses from our everyday lived experience’. Thus, the concept of landscape displays emotional, ideological and aesthetic elements from all senses (Stefanou and Stefanou 2002). Tuan (1975; 1979) claims that landscape is the observer’s imagination exercised over sense data. Although perceiving place can be selective, interactive and individual and can incorporate the element of subjectivity (Crang 1998), perceiving landscape is not just the observation of an area depending on the individual style of each observer. On the contrary, it is an attempt to recognise the identity of a place which depends on the emotions of the observer and the historical background of a place (Nairn 1965; Relph 1976; Ananiadou-Tzimopoulou and Tsalikidis 2006; Eleftheriadis 2006). The ‘genius loci’, as Norberg-Schultz ([1979] 1991) named it, inspires all the individual elements of the place and cannot exist without their contribution. The sense of place, and its ‘negative’ (placelessness), were first elaborated in depth by Tuan (1977) and Relph (1976). Campelo (2015, 58) argues that the atmosphere, or the sense of place, is ‘created out of the combination of social reproductions interacting within a physical setting’, while Manzo (2003) mentions that some authors consider

96

Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner

the sense of place attached to it, while others believe it is broader, beyond its borders. In addition, ‘it is advocated that understanding the sense of place is important in attempting to develop brands for places. The uniqueness of each place is its sense of place’ (Campelo 2015, 51). In this way, the sense of place is strongly linked to place marketing and place branding practices (Lalou, Katsafadou, and Deffner, 2017). The work which is considered as a ‘predecessor’ of city marketing/ branding is the classic book The Image of The City by Kevin Lynch (1960), who was an initiator in many issues. Place marketing aims at the strategically planned enhancement of the image of a place through the promotion of its unique characteristics (Kotler, Haider, and Rein 1993; Cheshire and Gordon 1996; Kotler et al. 1999; Rohr-Zanker 2001). Furthermore, place branding is the effort arising from the creation, management and promotion of the image, as well as the identity of a place to the external environment (Mommaas 2002; Hemelryk and Gammack 2007; Kavaratzis 2008; Govers and Go [2009] 2016). In these practices, landscape is considered important as it functions as the initial request and the final deliverable in forming a place identity (Doxiadis and Liveri 2012). As mentioned before, people create relationships with places and therefore landscapes, using sensory, affective and cognitive aspects (Rakić and Chambers 2012; Cheng and Kuo 2015). These relationships cause sensory landscapes (Landry 2012) or sensoryscapes. Thus, the discovery of the identity of a place in the process of place branding can create a new sensory landscape experience, while place branding can create and manage sensory associations between people and place (Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2005). The role of senses in this process has not been an object of an in-depth research. The visual approach is mostly appreciated in place branding procedures, while the rest of the senses have been somehow neglected. As Drobnick (2002, 32-33) claims: many theorists of spatial experience gesture toward the necessity of understanding places via all of the senses... most neglect to follow through and explore the ramifications of such statements, only to reiterate, ultimately, a methodology centred on visualist and discursive modes.

In the context of a broader survey, the present research investigated the role of the three senses of sight, hearing and smell in the landscape perception creating sensory landscapes, and particularly a sightscape, a soundscape (Schafer 1969) and a smellscape (Porteous 1985), in conjunction with the

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding

97

creative activities, and how these could affect place branding. In this chapter, more specifically the role of the sense of hearing is investigated, as well as the importance of the creation of a soundscape through creative activities. Soundscape constitutes the collection of all types of sounds, the way that they are arranged in space and time and the way that they are perceived by people (Southworth 1967,1969; Brown, Gjestland, and Dubois 2016). It is the ‘result of the overlapping of the sounds from geophonic (wind, flowing water, sea waves, eruptions), biophonic (vocalizations, contact and alarm calls, songs), and anthrophonic (industrial and urban activities; road, marine and air traffic) sources’ (Farina 2014). ‘The soundscape is evoked by the physical sound environment’, hence the sonic environment, ‘but it is not equal to it’ (Botteldooren et al. 2016). The soundscape can define the culture (Scarre and Lawson 2006) and, consequently, the identity of an area. As stated above, people engage in and form the creative identity of a place. However, the creative identity of a place includes not only hard factors but also the soft ones. Actually, all public and human activities constitute the resources of a creative identity generated in a place. All these activities are also part of the relationship between the people and the place, which form the landscape of the area. The general and present research goes beyond the concept of creativity found mostly in urban landscapes, but deals also with rural areas or smaller settlements that can be characterised as creative, since people engage in and form the creative identity of a place. This is strongly connected with the sensory qualities of a place, and more specifically with the perception of the landscape through human senses. It is accepted that the sensory perception of the landscape relates to authenticity and uniqueness. Therefore, the unique creative identity of a place can be combined with the authentic identity of a sensoryscape that comes from the perception of the landscape through sensory and cognitive associations.

Research Area and Methodology The present research constitutes part of a broader research, conducted in the Regional Unit of Magnesia, Greece and more specifically in three small settlements with different geographical characteristics (Old Village of Alonnisos Island, Agios Lavrentios, Anavra) and in the capital of Magnesia (Volos). The general research examines the sensory landscapes of Magnesia. In this chapter, the role of the sense of hearing and the importance of the creation of a soundscape through creative activities in the settlement of Agios

98

Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner

Lavrentios is analysed in order to investigate the contribution to the identity of the place and to the perception of the landscape. Agios Lavrentios is a mountainous settlement of 400 residents (HSA 2011) at the eastern part of Magnesia. It was characterised as a traditional settlement1 in 1978, namely a settlement that has preserved its image and its local identity. This is perceived when the visitor takes a walk along the village. Its main characteristics are traditional architecture, traditional means of transport (horses/ mules; cars are excluded in the settlement as it is the endpoint of the local road network) and preserved natural landscape. A special characteristic concerning its social structure is that during the 1970s, scholars and artists that came from major urban centres especially Athens (the capital of Greece) and Thessaloniki (the second largest Greek city) – selected the settlement as their holiday resort, renovating old houses and reviving the area giving it a more open and artistic character. This paved the way for Agios Lavrentios to flourish in the following decades mainly through artistic and creative activities. That progress is considered highly important because of the continuity it had concerning the development of the place. The settlement is now widely known as the host of the International Music Community ‘Music Village’ (MV), which is a special music event that has been organised annually for the past 12 years - with a silent interval in 2017. MV constitutes an international creative community based on music, dance and performance arts, set up during the summer in different periods, gathering artists from around the world. The MV is coordinated by a creative forum, called ‘The Egg’, a creative incubator, accommodated in a re-used former artistic space situated in Thessaloniki. There, throughout the year, new musical ideas and contemporary educational patterns are incubated, while the schedule and the activities for the MV are planned and prepared annually. Starting with the MV, the residents and visitors of the settlement, created a series of music activities throughout the whole year, e.g., e ‘Lav Renti Festival’ which is a 3-day festival with ‘rembetiko’ music. Renowned Greek musicians and singers performing individual concerts and music ensembles prefer the settlement in order to perform unique concerts. Also, traditional fairs like the one on August 15th or the ‘Cherry Fair’ take place in Agios Lavrentios with music being a strong feature. Furthermore, important 1

According to the Greek New Building Regulations (NOK), as traditional settlements can be defined settlements or parts of cities or settlements or independent housing units with the intention to preserve and highlight their special historical, urban, architectural, folklore, social and aesthetic physiognomy (Greek Government Law 79 / 9.4.2012 A ‘).

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding

99

outcomes, such as the creation of successful bands, amplify the significance and the sustainability of the event. In addition, residents are organised in associations trying to promote the village as an artistic creative place. The aim of the fieldwork was to determine the sensoryscape that derives from the synergy between the landscape and the creative activities expressed in Agios Lavrentios. For this purpose, the methodology used combined observational analysis through the SLA tool and semi-structured interviews. The SLA tool was configured and based on observational analysis according to the Landscape Character Assessment field, which concerrns environmental psychology, geography and landscape architecture, and refers mainly to the visual landscape (Palmer, 2003; Kaymaz, 2012). The SLA tool integrated data organised according to the senses of sight, hearing, and smell as well as whether they came from human activities or natural causes. The visual data included the living (human and animals) as well as the inanimate elements, which were divided into natural (water, soil and green) and anthropogenic elements (built environment, network-connections, free spaces and other areas). The hearing data included the natural sounds and the sounds generated by human activity (human sounds, mechanical sounds, music sounds and other sounds) (Yang & Kang, 2005; Augoyard & Torgue 2006; Brown, Kang & Gjestland, 2011). The data related to the sense of smell, included the natural smells and the smells generated by human activity (foodbeverage, emission of gases, waste and other smells) [Katsafadou, Lalou, and Deffner, 2018; Vasilara, 2010]. The researchers devoted two days in each of the two different periods the MV organised during 2016, for the observational analysis (SLA tool) in the settlement taking walks at daytime and night-time in order to perceive the sense of place. Although the walks took place at different times, significant variations were not observed. The second method used was semi-structured interviews with representatives from public and private associations of the settlement. In Agios Lavrentios, the International Music Community ‘Music Village’, the urban non-profit company ‘arTree’, the Local Community, the Developmental Association and the Association of Agios Lavrentios Professionals were interviewed. The interviews were conducted during daytime and were considered to be the best choice as the researchers had limited knowledge of the area. The open-ended questions concerned the distinctive characteristics or activities of the place, the description of the area’s sensoryscape and the importance of the creative characteristics or activities that exist or occur in the

100

Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner

place, as well as the means and the evaluation of their promotion. The duration of each interview was approximately one hour.

Results: The Soundscape of Agios Lavrentios and Its Promotion The distinctiveness and creativity of Agios Lavrentios focus on the MV event, but are also influenced by other music events throughout the year, which function as a continuity of the MV or are separate initiatives. In addition, the presence of people of higher education and artists from around the world, the support, tolerance and acceptance of the events from the locals strengthen the distinctiveness of the settlement. Thus, Agios Lavrentios displays all creativity criteria, but the following are dominant: diversity and expressiveness, tolerance, participation and collaboration, authenticity and cultural assets and networking and place promotion (Table 1). During the MV, the landscape of Agios Lavrentios is transformed into a unique soundscape. Singing, playing musical instruments and speeches or laughs in public spaces prevail during this event. At the same time, there are mainly natural sounds as well as original sounds, such as those of a traditional hand-crafted musical instrument, a flute made of local chestnut wood, used mostly during a religious festival. This creative sensory landscape (Table 2) emerges from the interaction between creativity displayed in the landscape and its sensoryscape. Therefore, Agios Lavrentios is mainly associated with the sense of hearing because of the main music event of MV and other smaller music events during the year. The music event has been entirely promoted by its coordinators through their website, press release, posters, printed advertisements, etc. Other events are promoted mainly through posters and radio updates. Since 2017, the Developmental Association of the village created a website for Agios Lavrentios and the announcement of further events. The promotion of the MV is considered by the respondents to be adequate, a fact that is confirmed by the success of the event. The organisers do not want to attract more participants than at present, as they believe that the level at which the event operates does not influence the landscape in a negative way and they wish to keep it that way. The promotion of the event is mostly based on bottom-up approaches that relate to place branding techniques. The major body that is responsible for it is the organisation company ‘arTree’, supported financially by the Greek

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding

101

Ministry of Culture and Sports, the Municipality of Volos and the Developmental Association of Agios Lavrentios. MV had a spillover effect creating a new successful annual initiative since 2017, the ‘Open Village’ that is focused on the promotion of the settlement through its history, architecture and cultural heritage. The schedule covers a variety of activities which relate to the discovery of additional sensoryscapes of Agios Lavrentios: smellscape through walks in order to discover local herbs, sightscape through architectural walks and guided tours in private and public buildings, etc. Still, sound is considered an important feature as events that have to do with traditional music instruments and music are at a prominent spot.

Conclusion The present research focused on the analysis of the creative sensory landscape of Agios Lavrentios in order to examine if this relationship between sensory landscapes and creativity can be used in forming and promoting the identity of a place. Before answering the main research questions outlined in the introduction, it is essential to present the basic conclusions of the total research. Creativity is assumed to be expressed in different ways depending on place, time and people. Thus, expressions of creativity affect the sensory landscape in different ways, according to the above parameters. In addition, creativity can be linked to specific sensoryscapes according to the size of the places studied. In contrast to small-sized settlements, in Volos (the capital of Magnesia) all the senses are curiously, yet equally, intermingled in their impact on the urban landscape. Moreover, no spesific theories can be identified between the creativity criteria and sensoryscapes (Katsafadou, Lalou, and Deffner, 2018). Regarding the first research question, the results of the studied settlement showed that the existence of creativity criteria contributes to the emergence of a dynamic sensoryscape. Therefore, the landscape of Agios Lavrentios can be categorised as a soundscape with emphasis on music events. In relation to the branding of the selected landscape, the settlement tried to promote its place in a variety of ways, in connection to its local distinctive characteristics. Answering the second question, the soundscape of Agios Lavrentios, through its promotion and the development of the creative characteristics/activities, strengthened its local identity, distributing it to the external environment.

102

Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner

However, some special suggestions can be made in order to enhance the identified creative sensory character of the settlement. The special music events should be treated as a whole, and a plan for the comprehensive promotion of the settlement itself should be made, along with the MV event. The planning of more educational arts workshops, seminars and masterclasses is suggested, with the opening up of the settlement to additional cultural groups, led by collaboration and cooperation among the associations in the internal environment and with crucial organisations in the external environment, such as transport companies, Volos Municipality, etc. Moreover, the area of the Regional Unit of Magnesia – which was the object of the broader research – should be promoted through a strategic place marketing plan, focusing on the creative milieus and the sensoryscapes that are developed. The settlement of Agios Lavrentios can act complementary with the other studied areas, as different ‘creative sensory poles’ which will activate different senses and different people in order to establish the sensory creative identity of Magnesia. As Medway (2015, 205) argues, ‘a more holistic approach is perhaps required, with place marketing practitioners ensuring that all five senses are catered for… in relation to the place brand’. Regarding the third question, after the identification of different sensory landscapes in the broader area, a new form of place branding is proposed that includes the unique sensoryscapes which come from the synergy between the landscape and the present creativity in place. Although visual characteristics are those that mostly communicated in place branding techniques, it is recognised that ‘place consumers’ visit destinations in order to smell, taste, listen, and in general experience place in a multi-sensory dimension. This direction is proposed to be enhanced, with the promotion of Agios Lavrentios as a unique soundscape, linking its image to traditional and multicultural acoustic experience which is present all the year round.

Acknowledgment This work was supported by the State Scholarships Foundation (IKY), Greece, under Grant ‘Research Projects for Excellence IKY/Siemens’.

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding

103

Appendix Table 1. Expressions of creativity criteria in Agios Lavrentios (Katsafadou, Lalou, and Deffner, 2018) Creativity criteria

Agios Lavrentios

Leadership and vision

 Initiative of the original organisers of Music Village  Collaboration of local operators  Local community administration  Complex social structure, highly educated people and artists  Culture - lifestyle  Support from the locals  Artistic cohabitation and experimentation  Volunteerism  Participation in music performances  Implementation of training workshops/masterclasses  Creative cultural company for the organisation of Music Village  Traditional architecture  No road network  Contemporary culture and arts  Gastronomy  Online information and participation platform  Media and radio promotion  Networking of the Music Village with other international music projects  Accessibility  Accommodation  Undulating topography  Open and green spaces  Springs

Diversity and expressiveness

Tolerance, participation and collaboration

Education and research

Entrepreneurship, innovation and technology Authenticity and cultural assets

Networking and place promotion

Quality of life and environmental awareness

Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner

104

Table 2. The sensory landscape of Agios Lavrentios (Katsafadou, Lalou, and Deffner, 2018) Senses Vision

Hearing

Smell

Agios Lavrentios  Stone  Cobbled streets  Absence of vehicles  Open spaces  Musicians composing or rehearsing their music outdoors  Singing  Playing musical instruments  Speeches  Laughters  Running water  Air breezes  Blossoms during spring  Fresh mountain air  Food smells

Acknowledgment This work was supported by the State Scholarships Foundations (IKY), Greece, under Grand ‘Research Projects for Excellence IKY/Siemens.

References Ananiadou-Tzimopoulou, Mary, and Ioannis A. Tsalikidis, eds. 2006. Architektoniki Topiou: Ekpaideusi, Ereuna kai Efarmosmeno Ergo [Landscape Architecture: Education, Research and Practice]. Thessaloniki: Ziti. Andersson, A. (1987): Culture, Creativity and Economic Development in a Regional Context. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Co-operation, Project No. 10, Seminar No. 5. Augoyard, Jean-François and Henry Torgue. 2006. Sonic Experience: A Guide to Everyday Sounds. Canada: McGill-Quenn’s University Press. Brown, Lex, Jian Kang, and Truls Gjestland. 2011. “Towards Standardization in Soundscape Preference Assessment.” Applied Acoustics 72: 387-392. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2011.01.001. Borev, Yuri. 1981. Aesthetics. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding

105

Botteldooren, Dick, Tjeerd Andringa, Itziar Aspuru, Lex Brown, Danièle Dubois, Catherine Guastavino, Jian Kang, Catherine Lavandier, Mats E. Nilsson, Anna Preis and Brigitte Schulte-Fortkamp. 2016. “From Sonic Environment to Soundscape.” In Soundscape and the Built Environment, edited by Jian Kang, and Brigitte Schulte-Fortkamp, 1-16. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group. Brown, Lex. A., Truls Gjestland, and Danièle Dubois. 2016. “Acoustic Environments and Soundscapes.” In Soundscape and the Built Environment, edited by Jian Kang, and Brigitte Schulte-Fortkamp, 1-16. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group. Campelo, Adriana. 2011. Sensory Knowledge in Place Marketing. Accessed 24 February 2019. https://marketing.conference-services.net/resources/327/2342/pdf/AM2011_ 0167.pdf. Campelo, Adriana. 2015. “Rethinking Sense of Place: Sense of One and Sense of Many.” In Rethinking Place Branding. Comprehensive Brand Development for Cities and Regions, edited by Mihalis Kavaratzis, Gary Warnaby, and Gregory J. Ashworth, 51– 60. Berlin: Springer. Carta, Maurizio. 2007. Creative City: Dynamics, Innovations, Actions. Barcelona: List. Cassatella, Claudia. 2011. “Assessing Visual and Social Perceptions of Landscape.” In Landscape Indicators: Assessing and Monitoring Landscape Quality, edited by Claudia Cassatella, and Attilia Peano, 105-140. London: Springer. Cheng, Chia-Kuen, and Huei-Yu Kuo. 2015. “Bonding to a New Place Never Visited: Exploring the Relationship between Landscape Elements and Place Bonding.” Tourism Management 46: 546-560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2014.08.006. Cheshire, Paul C., and Ian R. Gordon. 1996. “Territorial Competition and the Predictability of Collective (In)Action.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 20: 383-399. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427. 1996.tb00324.x. Crang, Mike. 1998. Cultural Geography. London: Routledge. Daniel, Terry C., and Ron S. Boster. 1976. Measuring Landscape Aesthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research Paper RM - 167. Accessed 24 February 2019. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_rp167.pdf. Doxiadis Thomas, and Dionysia Liveri. 2012. “Topos, Topio, Tautotita kai Topiki Eponomasia” [“Place, Landscape, Identity and Brand Name”]. In Marketing kai Branding Topou: I Diethnis kai i Elliniki Pragmatikotita [Place Marketing and Branding: International Experience and Greek Reality], edited by Alex Deffner, and Nicholas Karachalis, 453-473. Volos: University of Thessaly Press. Drobnick, Jim. 2002. “Toposmia: Art, Scent and Interrogations of Spatiality.” Angelaki 7 (1): 31-47. DOI: 10.1080/09697250220142047. Eleftheriadis, Nikolaos. 2006. Aisthitiki Topiou [Landscape Aesthetics]. Drama: Haris. Eleftheriadis, Nikolaos, A. Stilianidis and I. Paliokas eds. 2007. Proceedings of the International Conference Landscape Architecture and New Technologies (LANT07). Drama: Technological Education Institute of Kavala. Farina, Almo. 2014. Soundscape Ecology: Principles, Patterns, Methods and Applications. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.

106

Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner

Florida, Richard. (2002) 2012. The Rise of the Creative Class Revisited. New York: Basic Books. Govers, Robert, and Frank M. Go. 2009. Place Branding: Glocal, Virtual and Physical Identities, Constructed, Imagined and Experienced. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan. Hall, Peter 2000. “Creative Cities and Economic Development.” Urban Studies 37 (4): 639649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980050003946. Hartley, John, Jason Potts, Trent MacDonald, Chris Erkunt, and Carl Kufleitner. 2012. “Creative City Index”. Cultural Science Journal 5 (1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/csci.41. Hemelryk Donald, Stephanie, and John G. Gammack. 2007. Tourism and the Branded City: Film and Identity on the Pacific Rim. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hospers, Gert-Jan 2003. “Creative Cities in Europe: Urban Competitiveness in the Knowledge Economy.” Intereconomics 38 (5): 260-269. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF03031728. Howes, David 2006. “Charting the Sensorial Revolution.” Senses & Society 1 (1): 113-128. DOI: 10.2752/174589206778055673. HSA (Hellenic Statistical Authority). 2011. Results of the Permanent Population-Census 2011. Accessed June 1 2017. http://www.statistics.gr/2011-census-pop-hous. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1978. Humanscape: Environments for People. Duxbury Press. Katsafadou, Sotiria, Georgia Lalou, and Alex-Michael Deffner. 2018. “Creativity in the Perception of Sensory Landscapes and their Role in Place Branding: The Case of the Regional Unit of Magnesia, Greece.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 7 (1): 5-24. Kavaratzis, Michail. 2008. From City Marketing to City Branding: An Interdisciplinary Analysis with Reference to Amsterdam, Budapest and Athens. PhD diss., University of Groningen. Kavaratzis, Michail, and Gregory J. Ashworth. 2005. “City Branding: An Effective Assertion of Identity or a Transitory Marketing Trick ?” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 96 (5): 506-514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679663.2005.00482.x. Kaymaz, Isil Cakci. 2012. “Landscape Perception.” In Landscape Planning, edited by Murat Ozyavuz, 251-276. Rijeca: InTech. Kotionis, Zisis. 2007. Morfopoiitiki: Somatika Energimata sto Topio [Formative Poetry: Body Energetics in Landscape]. Athens, Volos: University of Thessaly Press. Kotler, Philip, Christer Asplund, Irving Rein, and Donald Haider. 1999. Marketing Places Europe, Attracting Investments, Industries, Residents and Visitors to European Cities, Communities, Regions and Nations. London: Prentice Hall. Kotler, Philip, Donald Haider, and Irving Rein. 1993. Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations. New York: The Free Press. Kunzmann, Klaus R. 2004. “Culture, Creativity and Spatial Planning.” Town Planning Review 75 (4): 383-404. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40112620.

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding

107

Lalou, Georgia, Sotiria Katsafadou, and Alex-Michael Deffner. 2017. “Sensory Landscapes of Creativity: Towards a New Form of Identity Branding.” International Journal of Progressive Sciences and High Technologies 6: 18-26. DOI: http://ijpsat.es/index.php/ijpsat/article/view/173/87. Landry, Charles. (2000) 2008. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan. Landry, Charles. 2006. “The Sensory Landscape of Cities.” Chap. 2 in The Art of City Making. London: Earthscan. Landry, Charles. 2012. The Sensory Landscape of Cities. City, Gloucestershire: Comedia. Landry, Charles, and Margie Caust. 2017. The Creative Bureaucracy & its Radical Common Sense City, Gloucestershire: Comedia. Landry, Charles, and Jonathan Hyams. 2012. The Creative City Index: Measuring the Pulse of the City, Gloucestershire: Comedia. Landry, Charles, and Chris Murray. 2017. Psychology & the City: The Hidden Dimension. City, Gloucestershire: Comedia. Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press. Manolidis, Kostas, ed. 2003. ‘Oraio, Frihto kai Aperitto Topio!’ Anagnoseis kai Prooptikes tou Topiou stin Ellada [‘Nice, Horrible and Plain Landscape!’ Views and Perspectives of the Landscape in Greece]. Skopelos: Nissides. Manzo, Lynne C. 2003. “Beyond House and Haven: Toward a Revisioning of Emotional Relationships with Places.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 2 (1): 47–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00074-9. Medway, Dominic. 2015. “Rethinking Place Branding and the ‘Other’ Senses.” In Rethinking Place Branding. Comprehensive Brand Development for Cities and Regions, edited by Mihalis Kavaratzis, Gary Warnaby, and Gregory J. Ashworth, 191– 209. Berlin: Springer. Meinig, Donald William. 1979. “The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Scene.” In The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, edited by Donald William Meinig, and John Brinckerhoff Jackson, 33-48. New York: Oxford University Press. Meusburger, Peter, Joachim Funke, and Edgar Wunder. 2009. “Introduction: the Spatiality of Creativity”. Introduction in Milieus of Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Spatiality of Creativity. Dordrecht: Springer. Mommaas, Hans. 2002. “City Branding: The Necessity of Socio- Cultural Goals.” In City Branding: Ιmage Building & Building Images, edited by Véronique Patteeuw. Rotterdam: NAI. Nairn, Ian. 1965. The American Landscape: A Critical Review. New York: Random House. Norberg-Schultz, Christian. (1979) 1991. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli. Palmer, James. 2003. “Research Agenda for Landscape Perception.” In Trends in Landscape Modelling, edited by Emanuel Buchmann, and Stephen Ervin, 163-172. Heidelberg: Hebert Wichmann Verlag. Plit, Joanna, and Urszulla Myga-Piątek. 2014. “The Degree of Landscape Openness as a Manifestation of Cultural Metamorphose.” Quaestiones Geographicae 33 (3): 145154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2014-0036.

108

Georgia Lalou, Sotiria Katsafadou and Alex Deffner

Poch, Arcadi. 2013. “Prologue.” In: Creaticity: Creative Expressions in Contemporary Cities, edited by Arcadi Poch, and Daniela Poch: 6-9. Mayo: Editorial Lemo. Porteous, Douglas J. 1985. “Smellscape.” Progress in Human Geography 9 (3) 356-378. DOI: 10.1177/030913258500900303. Potocka, Ilona. 2013. “The Lakescape in the Eyes of a Tourist.” Quaestiones Geographicae 32 (3): 85-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2013-0018. Rakić, Tijana, and Donna Chambers. 2012. “Rethinking the Consumption of Places.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (3): 1612-1633. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.annals.2011.12.003. Relph, Edward. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion. Rohr-Zanker, Ruth. 2001. “How to Attract Managers and Professionals to Peripheral Regions? Recruitment Strategies in the Weser-Ems Region, Germany.” European Planning Studies 9 (1): 47-68. DOI: 10.1080/09654310124625. Scarre, Christopher, and Graeme Lawson. Eds. 2006. Archaeoacoustics. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Schafer, Murray R. 1969. Our Sonic Environment and the Soundscape: The Tuning of the Word. Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books. Schröder, Jörg, Maurizio Carta, and Sarah Hartmann. 2018. Creative Heritage. Berlin: Jovis. Scott, Alister, Claudia Carter, Katrina Brown, and Vicki White. 2009. “‘Seeing is not Everything’: Exploring the Landscape Experiences of Different Publics.” Landscape Research 34 (4): 397-424. DOI: 10.1080/01426390903009289. Southworth, Michael. 1967. The Sonic Environment of Cities. Master diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Southworth, Michael. 1969. “The Sonic Environment of Cities.” Environment and Behavior 1 (1): 49-70. DOI:10.1177/001391656900100104. Stano, Pawel, and Dorota Węziak-Białowolska. 2017. “Measuring Cultural and Creative Activities in European Cities: Challenges and Practical Problems with Existing Indices.” Creativity Research Journal 29 (3): 292-303. DOI: 10.1080/10400419. 2017.1360066. Stefanou, Iosif, and Ioulia Stefanou. 2002. “Ta Psichometrika Megethi tou Astikou Topiou: O Rolos tous sti Diamorfosi tis Aisthitikis Krisis kai i Dinatotita Ektimisis tous” [“Psychometric Scales of Urban Landscape: Their Role in the Formation of the Aesthetics and Their Ability to Assessment”]. Technika Chronika II 1-2: 23-28. Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1975. “Place: An Experiential Perspective.” Geographical Review 65 (2): 151-165. DOI: 10.2307/213970 Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1979. “Thought and Landscape. The Eye and the Mind’s Eye.” In: The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, edited by Donald William Meinig, and John Brinckerhoff Jackson, 89-102. New York: Oxford University Press. Vasilara, Archontoula. 2010. Simeiosi kai Katagrafi tou Osmitiou Topiou [Marking and Listing the Odour Landscape]. PhD diss., National Technical University of Athens.

Creativity, Sensory Landscape and Place Branding

109

Yang, Wei and Jian Kang. 2005. “Acoustic Confort Evaluation in Urban Open Public Spaces.” Applied Acoustics 66 (2): 211-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2004.07.011.

Chapter 6

Creative Ecology: Innovation and Creativity Driven Solutions for Sustainability Ulas Akkucuk* Department of Management, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract Creative ecology can be defined as “an approach to ecology that investigates environmental solutions by the products of creativity and innovation.” The applications of the concept in the mainstream environmental problems can lead to breakthrough solutions rather than the incremental gains of classical approaches to ecology or “green washing” approaches that have no measurable results whatsoever and even may lead to an exacerbation of environmental problems. Creativity research naturally has originated from the discipline of psychology but has influenced lines of research in the administrative sciences as well. Particularly organization behavior area has used creativity concepts in team formulation and problem solving. In economics creativity has been researched in terms of the relationship of creative potential and economic growth and popularized with some terms such as creative destruction and creative class. When it comes to sustainability and ecology related research, there is a definite gap in the literature. The chapter will try to fill that void by looking at the current state of the literature and providing a general framework where future research can draw from. Also, the chapter will provide examples ranging from creative solutions to major environmental problems such as energy use, waste reduction and people movement (travel/commute).

*

Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected].

In: New Horizons in Creativity Editor: Shulamith Kreitler ISBN: 978-1-68507-751-8 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

112

Keywords: creativity, sustainability

Ulas Akkucuk

innovation,

ecology,

environment,

energy,

Introduction Environmental problems are by far the most important problems that society faces today. Air and water pollution were very strong issues starting with the 70’s but today the grave consequences of global warming are more apparent than ever and the solutions to combat the environmental problems are being offered by scientists and NGOs. My interest in sustainability and related topics started in 2011 when I prepared a paper about willingness to pay for environmentally friendly products (Akkucuk, 2011). Later I took on the job of editing a volume on chapters related to sustainability and in the preface, I stated “In an age of rising environmental concerns, it has become necessary for businesses to pay special attention to the resources they are consuming and the long-term effects of the products they are creating. These concerns, coupled with the current global economic crisis, demand a solution that includes not only business, but politics, ecology, and culture as well.” (Akkucuk, 2015). The statement is still valid today as the problems require an ever-increasing collaboration between different fields. The previous books I have edited have touched the sustainability issue from many different perspectives of social sciences (Akkucuk, 2015; Akkucuk, 2016; Akkucuk, 2017; Akkucuk, 2018; Akkucuk, 2019a; Akkucuk, 2019b; Akkucuk, 2020a; Akkucuk, 2020b; Akkucuk, 2022). Throughout this work and in reading the more than 170 chapters submitted by researchers from around the world, it became clear that a framework for ecological innovation was necessary and could be developed by drawing on the works of countless academics in the area. Much of the discussion around environmental concerns centers on the concept of global warming. The rising temperatures have caused concern among the scientists and these rising temperatures are responsible for extreme weather events and draughts in some parts of the continent. Belief or disbelief in global warming also stirs political debate as some politicians or political ideologies state their distrust in science and global warming. Growing waste and pollution is another aspect of grave concern to the environmentalists. There have been efforts in many developed countries to reduce the amount of solid waste and treat the liquid waste being produced. Plastic waste has been the focus in recent years especially in the popular

Creative Ecology

113

culture as he detrimental effects on the marine life are more and more apparent. In this book chapter I will try to shed light on alternative solutions to growing environmental problems. Innovation and creativity driven solutions will be alternatives to mainstream proposals to reduce waste and energy use which in the end create just the opposite effect. Creative solutions will be easy and cheap to implement and will not be just green washing. The chapter will proceed as follows. First, I will try to summarize the most important elements among the extant literature on the subject. Second, I will propose a framework whereby the creative ecology projects can be evaluated. I will continue by providing examples from the different areas of energy use, waste reduction and people movement. I will conclude the paper by recommendations and conclusion.

Literature Sustainability and environmental research has topped the academic agenda since the beginning of the 90s. John Elkington developed the concept of Triple Bottom-line as illustrated in Figure 1, which consisted of People, Planet and Profits (Elkington, 1994; 1998). Ever since, the sustainability concept was applied to many disciplines including economics, business, sociology, environmental engineering and manufacturing.

Figure 1. 3P Framework.

114

Ulas Akkucuk

Business and economics mostly deals with the methods of how resources are allocated to the general public. Several fields of business are interested in making consumers buy more products or in greater quantities, such as marketing. Marketing has mostly been criticized for it is trying to make consumers spend more or consume greater quantities of the products. In a study by Basch et al. (2013), involving 117 toothpaste commercials, 31 involved the picture of toothpaste on a toothbrush and 30 of these pictures included what is referred to as the “full swirl” or the excessive amount of toothpaste and only one of them featured the appropriate “pea-sized” amount of toothpaste. However, it is also marketing than can try to foster environmentally friendly behavior and lower consumption. Operations management is also another field directly dealing with sustainability (Gencer, 2019). NGOs also play an important role in finding creative solutions to environmental problems and raising awareness (Akkucuk & Sekercioglu, 2016). There are many worldwide NGOs that are in the field of raising environmental concern and activism. Some NGOs are acting on a global scale while others are local. Both global and local NGOs are crucial for the mitigation of today’s environmental problems. Environmental science has grown over the years starting from a merger of the disciplines of chemical engineering, civil engineering and biology. Most of the research in this area sheds light on the technical aspects of environmental conservation. Without the developments in this area new techniques of recycling or energy generation would not be possible.

Framework for Creative Ecology Just like the triple bottom-line when evaluating ecological innovation we also need a similar framework in order to evaluate the different alternatives for ecological innovation. Innovation can be classified as incremental, radical and disruptive as illustrated in Figure 2. Incremental innovation just makes a small improvement in the product or service that is in question. An example of this could be given as the DAT cassette that was popular but just for a short time. This type took the shape of the classical music cassette but improved the music quality by using digital recording. A radical innovation completely changes the product, for example the change from cassettes to cd’s could be classified as radical innovation. Disruptive innovation totally changes the way we do business, for example

Creative Ecology

115

rather than buying cd’s or cassettes to listen to music we would subscribe to Spotify or use YouTube to listen to music on our mobiles. Disruptive technologies have been known to be very useful in terms of logistics and other green supply chain management related technologies (Gencer & Akkucuk, 2020). Innovation can also be classified into four types according to the Oslo Manual prepared by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2005). Product innovation refers to improvements in goods or services. Process innovation refers to significant improvements in delivery or production methods. Marketing innovation refers to changes in design, product placement, promotion and pricing of products and services. Organizational innovation refers to business practices, workplace organization or external relations. Table 1 summarizes these types with examples that are particularly applicable in the field of environmental innovations. The framework that I will propose for the evaluation of ecological innovations will be very simple to use and interpret just like the triple bottomline approach. The triple bottom-line approach consists of Planet - People Profits. The framework for evaluating ecological innovation should similarly contain the three elements of Value to Environment - Value to Consumer/Citizen - Value to the Company/Institution. How these will be measured and how the sub component will be determined will depend on the type of the ecological innovation. This framework proposed in this chapter will be called the “ECOV8” Framework.

Figure 2. The three types of innovation.

116

Ulas Akkucuk

Table 1. Four types of innovation according to Oslo Report Type of Innovation Product Process Marketing

Organizational

Characteristic Improvements in goods or services: A washing machine designed to use less water Significant improvements in delivery or production method: Downloading books rather than buying physical copies Changes in design, product placement, promotion and pricing of products and services: Using variable pricing in electricity in order to shift demand to less busy times Business practices, workplace organization or external relations: Two producers sharing distribution centers to minimize inventory costs.

Figure 3. The Ecological Innovation Framework (ECOV8).

According to this ECOV8 framework each environmental project can be evaluated on these three dimensions nine sub dimensions of these. The evaluations can be either qualitative or quantitative. It is difficult to set a standard for these without an empirical analysis but further future work may provide a more strict quantitative guideline. Another feature of the ECOV8

Creative Ecology

117

framework is that it allows for different sub criteria of the dimensions based on the different types of projects as a one size fits all approach may not be appropriate. There are three evaluation dimensions to the framework and each can have different sub dimensions as illustrated in Tables 2 to 4. Table 2 to provides the sub dimensions of Value to the Environment, Table 3 provides the sub dimensions of Value to the Customer and finally Table 4 explains the sub dimensions of Value to the Company. Table 2. Value to the environment Value Reduce Energy Use Reduce Material Use Reduce Pollution in Chemicals Reduce greenhouse emissions

Measure Could be measured in watts/joules Measured by weight (grams) Measured by weight (grams) or volume (liters) Measured by weight (tons)

Table 3. Value to the customer/citizen Value Ease of Adoption Cost of Adoption

Measure A technology adoption scale Monetary units

Table 4. Value to the company/institution Value Cost (Fixed) Cost (variable) Perceived benefits of adopting

Measure Monetary units Monetary units Public perceptions (scale could be used)

Creative Solution Examples Energy Use Energy use by the human population is probably the greatest single factor of global warming. Energy use can be separated into some subcategories. Domestic and commercial electricity use and transportation by far are the most important two of these categories. Heating and cooling is also an important category. Since I will take transportation under a more general category

118

Ulas Akkucuk

of people movement I will focus more on heating/cooling and domestic/ commercial electricity use here. There is so much academic interest and political interest in encouraging and developing the “renewable” energy sources around the world. There is some debate as to which renewables can be classified truly as renewables but most people agree on solar and wind energy. Biomass causes some debate as this type also contributes to global warming. Some developed countries invest heavily in solar energy and wind energy. The controversies surrounding wind and solar range from landscape views ruined to disposal of blades. It is difficult to estimate now what will happen to the used blades and solar panels once their useful life is over. With investor forces pointing in the direction of renewables growing ever stronger this may not be a valid argument to make as the power companies will find more “green” funds available to invest in these projects. It has also been shown that countries with more renewable energy use score better in terms of human development indicators and health care expenses (Sasmaz et al., 2020; Sasmaz et al., 2021). Humans have always emphasized the problem of heating their homes especially in the colder climates. Cooling and refrigeration came into being in the beginning of the 20th century as the technology improves to make coolers and air conditioners widely available. It is important to realize that most refrigerators in today’s homes are not fully used. Mostly the refrigerators are full of materials that actually do not need any refrigeration. Also they are much larger than needed and keep food at a much lower temperature than needed. Dining out most of the time and reducing the need for refrigerators would save space and also energy. It is also possible to make use of the outside cold in countries with cold enough winters. This would entail designing the necessary fittings in the architecture of the home or apartment. Also using the hat created by the refrigerator is another way to achieve savings. Such energy efficient cooling systems have been discussed in the literature (Babu et al., 2021; Hovgaard et al., 2011; Sanukrishna et al., 2017).

Waste Reduction Recycling has been hailed for a long time as the most important solution to the growing waste problem the earth faces. Initially the landfills were becoming full in the industrialized sphere and the recycling spree emanated from the need to free up these landfills. Now the emphasis is more on plastic waste that ends up in the oceans and threatens marine life there. Different examples of

Creative Ecology

119

recycling and the pros and cons of recycling have been discussed in the literature (Gencer, 2016). There are many types of waste that consumers produce. Households buy packaged goods from the supermarkets and the packages most of the time are not reusable. The 4Rs of waste reduction can be summarized as Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recover (Akkucuk, 2016). In some earlier publications the 4Rs were referred to as 3Rs (excluding recovery) and in some newer publications there are some additions to the 4Rs such as 4R plus T (Dolunay, 2016). While there may be minor differences the essence of the 4Rs remains the same. The most important of the 4Rs in my opinion is the “Reduce.” Today there is an interesting example of this is the toothpaste without the cardboard packaging, with petitions in Change.org (Change.org, 2020) and other places. The change.org petition has nearly 120,000 signatures. Obviously, the secondary package of paper is no use to the functioning of the product of the durability. According to the change.org site there are 900 million extra boxes thrown away yearly. Some countries have moved to ban the secondary packaging in toothpaste whish seems to be redundant. One of these countries with the ban is Iceland. Aluminum is another example in which over the years the amount of aluminum in a standard can has been reduced. According to recycleusa.inc the weight of a can has been reduced from 16.55 grams in 1992 to 14.9 grams today. This reduction has been made possible without any changes in the product quality. We also need to point out that aluminum can easily be recycled and is favored by many scavengers (unorganized trash collectors) because it brings back a reasonable profit and can be compacted easily to save space in the transportation process. Reuse is also another important step in waste reduction. Rather than drinking soda from aluminum or plastic we could use glass and the glass could be returned to the store for a refund to be used again. The empty glass needs to be cleaned as an extra process and the chemicals used in addition to energy must be evaluated to see if this alternative is better than a single use container. The delivery truck for the beverage company might take the empty containers back so this process should not require any additional transportation charges. The return obtained by the customer will also be an additional incentive for the initiative. This type of reuse was very popular in the 80s however diminished later with newer forms of plastic and aluminum packaging. Tires are also a great cause of environmental concern. Different types of reuses, recycling or recovery methods are available for the growing used tire

120

Ulas Akkucuk

masses that are accumulating in the developed and developing countries. Tires contain both steel and rubber and for proper recycling these must be separated first. Tires generally are safe to drive as long as the tread grooves are of a specific depth. If the depth becomes too shallow the tire becomes “bald” and unsafe to drive and would not pass inspection. One way to reuse tires is to “retread” them. Some machines can stick on the tire a usable section of outer tread and the rest of the tire components are not wasted. In another application massive amounts of tires were thrown in the ocean for making living space for coral reefs. One very old application of tire reuse was invented by the Swedish tire company Gislaved (now owned by Continental). The scrap material in the company was used to make some kind of black shoes that were also known with the name Gislaved and very popular in some countries even today, for example rural Turkey. Other than these uses tires can be shred into smaller pieces and used in asphalt or in making soft running tracks or tiles for parks. Apart from these uses, which could be classified as reuse or recycle, as a final use tires can be burned to recover energy either for heating homes or producing energy. It is this last use which also emits harmful gases to the atmosphere and should perhaps be avoided. Waste also occurs in the catering sector. KFC has found an ingenious solution to minimizing the waste in the restaurants (Yahoo News, 2020). They have turned the tray liners and the receipts into napkins and call this system napkinized. This is a creative solution that reduces the paper use. Water use is also another important element facing the environment. Water is actually not chemically altered by human use but the chlorination, pumping and waste treatment issues make water savings very important. Also some countries face draughts and significant fresh water shortages time to time. Some countries as in the Arabian Peninsula use seawater treatment for their fresh water needs and this not only consumers enormous amounts of energy but also creates heaps of excess salt that needs to be stored. There are many inventions designed to reduce household water use. One of these is the dual flush consisting of two flush buttons with different amounts of water discharge. While this may initially seem to be a very useful innovation causing domestic water use to decrease dramatically a recent report claims that these types of flushed actually increase water waste (Guardian, 2020). Desalinating sea water is a must for countries in arid regions. Most gulf countries rely on desalination mainly by heating the seawater and condensing the steam into freshwater. This is highly energy intensive and leaves enormous amounts of salt deposits. Another method is desalinating by reverse osmosis which requires filtering the seawater through a membrane by pressure that

Creative Ecology

121

only permits the smaller water molecules but does not permit the other salts. This is also energy intensive and the filters need replacement. The system also creates saltier water which needs to be returned to the seas just to make it saltier. However, as a joint project with Israel and Jordan could desalinate the water and pump the salty brine to the dead seas 200 km north in order to also save the dead seas from drying out with a positive consequence (Ackerman, 2019). Read to Dead Project as it has been named would solve Jordan’s water problems as well as revitalize a historic natural wonder of the world. Another desalination plant in Israel, the Sorek Plant, performs a natural sand filter before the water is pumped through the membranes which makes the process more efficient (Jacobsen, 2016). It is also possible to use sea water directly for certain household activities the most suitable being toilet flushing. Actually, Hong Kong already has a system of separate pipes for people to use sea water directly in flushing (Gov.hk, 2020). Drinking water is also another concern that has raised some technological investment in the Middle East. Systems that convert humidity from the air into pure water can be very valuable systems here (Shourideh et al., 2018). Capturing the humidity from air may be performed in an energy efficient manner and result in drinkable water using additive minerals that are typically used by water filters around the world. The water filters used by most countries waste a part of the water that cannot be effectively filtered through the reverse osmosis membrane and also the input water is already processed water that needs to be pumped from a remote location. The on-site air to water systems in the future will prove to be very effective in the Middle East. Agricultural water use is another more important element. Different types of irrigation systems could lead to massive amounts of water to be saved. Drip irrigation is a technique that can reduce water consumption. Deficit irrigation is also another technique proposed for reducing agricultural water use (Fereres & Soriano, 2007.

People/Goods Movement Transportation by land, air and sea also contributes to the environmental problems. Transportation of people to and from work and recreation creates a lot of waste. Transportation could also be due to shipment of goods from the sources to the consumption spots. Carbon dioxide emissions from the exhaust pipes create the greenhouse gases that warm up the atmosphere and expedite our demise as a civilization. There are different calculations based on the type

122

Ulas Akkucuk

of fuel but generally burning gasoline or diesel emits 2.4 kg to 2.6 kg of CO2 to the atmosphere when burned in a combustion engine. We can always go for the more efficient smaller cars however the problem still exists. Many people cannot think of the sheer weight of the carbon they produce. I have personally spent 1030, 1275, 1487 and 1365 liters of gasoline from the years 2016 to 2019. Due to the effect of COVID the consumption in the year 2020 has only been up to 742 liters and for 2021 722 liters so far as of October 20 of 2021. So this indicates that the home office alone can make a drastic reduction in the amount of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere. Learning management systems make it easy for academics and students to continue with e-learning rather than face to face learning (Balkaya & Akkucuk, 2021). Commuting to work is one of the main causes of pollution traffic congestion and lost work time in cities. The easiest solution to the problems posed by commute is to use home office whenever possible. The COVID pandemic has also resulted in many people working from home and also many students studying form home. For this to be efficient all we need is a good Internet infrastructure and enough equipment (tablets, PCs). In most developed countries the Internet infrastructure is more than enough to handle the traffic and since the average household size is not too high the equipment need would be well served by the existing equipment. Transportation of goods is another major cause of environmental problems. Optimal transportation is to use the waterways as much as possible. Next to that is to use the rail transportation. Ground freight by rubber tire trucks is the least efficient. More transportation with waterways (or arranging major demand spots along the seas) should have a great impact on supply chain related greenhouse gas emissions. A number of studies have examined the carbon reduction through port use and multi modal transportation strategies (Rorrigues et al., 2015; Pizzol, 2019; McKinnon, 2016). Supply Chain Management (SCM) evolved as a technique to cover the entire upstream and downstream elements of the value chain in order to streamline the movement of products and raw materials along the chain. Green SCM also evolved as an alternative to SCM emphasizing the reverse flows and energy use along the supply chain. GSCM has been known to benefit many industries including the construction sector which is responsible for a great deal of carbon output. The application of GSCM into the construction sector has also been demonstrated by many studies (Wiguna et al., 2021; Akyelken, 2011; Balasubramanian & Shukla, 2017; Begum et al., 2009; Shurrab et al., 2018; Wibowo et al., 2018).

Creative Ecology

123

Smart city planning has recently been introduced as an alternative to reduce carbon emissions (Okay, 2016). When designing smart cities the waste collection, package delivery and liquid waste disposal should all be optimized. Trucks having to collect waste from containers placed in front of houses are very in efficient. If any waste is produced at all (it is of course the ideal way to produce little household organic waste, ideally all waste should be recyclable or thrown in the sink garbage disposal) it should be thrown in the chute and taken downstairs to a container which is then automatically collected by an underground rail system that will carry it to locations which will convert waste to fertilizer. Smart cities should also optimize the movement of people. People should indeed register with their apps when they will require travel to their destinations. Then driverless pods will collect people and carry them to their destinations in the most cost effective manner. Efficiency gains in smart cities due to transport vehicles have been discussed in a number of papers (Zhang et al., 2017; Cugurullo & Archeampong, 2020; Marrone & Hammarle, 2018; Arena & Ticali, 2018).

Conclusion and Recommendations Human activities contribute to environmental degradation and in turn the environmental degradation makes the earth less comfortable for human habitation. Rising temperatures contribute to global warming and this in turn causes extreme weather events and draughts that reduce crop yields. If the human activities are not controlled to a reasonable degree drastic measures may need to be taken later. There are many environmental solutions proposed to solve the problems but some of these solutions are highly disputed nowadays. In a controversial documentary called “The Planet of the Human” Michael Moore criticized the “so called” renewable energy types such as biofuel and solar panels. This documentary was so controversial it was banned from YouTube. Another documentary shown on Al-Jazeera channel depicted heaps of wind turbine rotors in Germany that had been decommissioned and simply waited to be recycled. However the current level of technology was not able to deal with such waste. An NPR report (2019) also states that “U. S. will have more than 720,000 tons of blade material to dispose of over the next 20 years, a figure that doesn’t include newer, taller higher-capacity versions” and also adding “There aren’t many options to recycle or trash turbine blades, and what options do exist are expensive.” So, it is clear that wind solar and biomass may solve

124

Ulas Akkucuk

some problems but also create others for next generations. It seems clear reducing the energy needs should be top priority rather than increasing generation capacity. In this chapter I tried to shed light on the concept of using creativity-based solutions to ecological problems the world faces. The COVID pandemic has once again taught the human race how vulnerable we are on this planet and how nature will fight back when necessary. The drops in global CO2 emissions after the pandemic showed that dramatic reductions are possible if planned and necessary. I sincerely hope that academic research and industrial research will join forces and try to mitigate the burden that the human footprint causes on the environment. It is a sure fact that without collaboration between academia, industry and government realistic solutions to environmental problems will not be found and the only offers will be more and more “green washing.”

References Ackerman, G. (2019). Israel ready to build billion-dollar project with Jordan to pump water from Red Sea to Dead Sea. https://nationalpost.com/news/ world/israel-ready-tobuild-billion-dollar-project-to-pump-water-from-red-sea-to-dead-sea-with-jordan. Akkucuk, U. (Ed.). (2015). Handbook of Research on Developing Sustainable Value in Economics, Finance, and Marketing. IGI Global. http://doi:10. 4018/978-1-46666635-1. Akkucuk, U. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Research on Waste Management Techniques for Sustainability. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9723-2. Akkucuk, U. (Ed.). (2017). Ethics and Sustainability in Global Supply Chain Management. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2036-8. Akkucuk, U. (Ed.). (2018). Handbook of Research on Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Development. IGI Global. http://doi:10. 4018/978-1-5225-5757-9. Akkucuk, U. (Ed.). (2019a). The Circular Economy and Its Implications on Sustainability and the Green Supply Chain. IGI Global. http://doi:10. 4018/978-1-5225-8109-3. Akkucuk, U. (Ed.). (2019b). Ethical and Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Global Context. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8970-9. Akkucuk, U. (Ed.). (2020a). Handbook of Research on Creating Sustainable Value in the Global Economy. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1196-1. Akkucuk, U. (Ed.). (2020b). Handbook of Research on Sustainable Supply Chain Management for the Global Economy. IGI Global. http://doi:10. 4018/978-1-79984601-7. Akkucuk, U. (Ed.). (2022). Disruptive Technologies and Eco-Innovation for Sustainable Development. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-8900-7.

Creative Ecology

125

Akkucuk, U. (2016). SCOR Model and the Green Supply Chain. In: Akkucuk, U. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Waste Management Techniques for Sustainability (pp. 108124). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9723-2.ch006. Akkucuk, U. (2011). Combining purchase probabilities and willingness to pay measures: a case on recycled products. European Journal of Social Sciences, 23(3), 353-361. Akkucuk, U., & Sekercioglu, C. H. (2016). NGOs for Environmental Sustainability: The Case of Kuzeydoga Foundation. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 25(12), 60386044. Akyelken, N. (2011). Green Logistics: Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Logistics. Transport Reviews, 31(4), 547-548. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2010.537101 Arena, F., & Ticali, D. (2018, November). The development of autonomous driving vehicles in tomorrow’s smart cities mobility. In: AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2040, No. 1, p. 140007). AIP Publishing LLC. Babu, P. N., Mohankumar, D., Kumar, P. M., Makeshkumar, M., Gokulnath, M., Gurubalaji, K., & Ashok, M. (2021). Energy efficient refrigeration system with simultaneous heating and cooling. Materials Today: Proceedings. Balasubramanian, S., & Shukla, V. (2017). Green supply chain management: An empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply Chain Management, 22(1), 58-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2016-0227. Balkaya, S., & Akkucuk, U. (2021). Adoption and Use of Learning Management Systems in Education: The Role of Playfulness and Self-Management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1127. Basch, C. H., Hammond, R., Guinta, A., Rajan, S., & Basch, C. E. (2013). Advertising of toothpaste in parenting magazines. Journal of community health, 38(5), 911-914. doi: 10.1007/s10900-013-9700-2. Begum, R. A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J. J., & Jaafar, A. H. (2009). Attitude and behavioral factors in waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(6), 321-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.01.005. Change.org (2020). https://www.change.org/p/colgate-palmolive-why-toothpaste-comesin-a-box. Cugurullo, F., & Acheampong, R. A. (2020). Smart cities. In: Handbook of Urban Mobilities (pp. 389-397). Routledge. Dolunay, O. (2016). A Paradigm Shift: Empowering Farmers to Eliminate the Waste in the Form of Fresh Water and Energy through the Implementation of 4R+T. In: Akkucuk, U. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Waste Management Techniques for Sustainability (pp. 368-379). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9723-2.ch019. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90-100. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165746. Elkington, J. (1998). Accounting For the Triple Bottom Line. Measuring Business Excellence, 2(3), 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025539. Fereres, E., & Soriano, M. A. (2007). Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. Journal of experimental botany, 58(2), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl165.

126

Ulas Akkucuk

Gencer, Y. G. (2016). Mystery of Recycling: Glass and Aluminum Examples. In Akkucuk, U. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Waste Management Techniques for Sustainability (pp. 172-191). IGI Global. http://doi:10. 4018/978-1-4666-9723-2.ch009. Gencer, Y. G. (2019). The Necessity of Sustainability in Operations Management in Terms of Various Sectors. In: Ethical and Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Global Context (pp. 77-85). IGI Global. Gencer, Y. G., & Akkucuk, U. (2020). Disruptive Logistics and Green Supply Chain Management. In Handbook of Research on Sustainable Supply Chain Management for the Global Economy (pp. 96-106). IGI Global. Gov.hk (2020). Effect of Red Tides on Seawater for Toilet Flushing. https://www.wsd.gov.hk/filemanager/en/share/pdf/red_tide_a.pdf. Hovgaard, T., Halvgaard, R., Larsen, L., & Jørgensen, J. (2011). Energy efficient refrigeration and flexible power consumption in a smart grid. Technical University of Denmark, 164e75. Jacobsen, R. (2016). Israel Proves the Desalination Era Is Here. https://www. .com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/. Marrone, M., & Hammerle, M. (2018). Smart cities: A review and analysis of stakeholders’ literature. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60(3), 197-213. McKinnon, A. C. (2016). Freight transport deceleration: Its possible contribution to the decarbonisation of logistics. Transport Reviews, 36(4), 418-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1137992. Okay, E. (2016). Towards Smart Cities in Turkey?: Transitioning from Waste to Creative, Clean and Cheap Eco-Energy. In: Akkucuk, U. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Waste Management Techniques for Sustainability (pp. 277-302). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9723-2.ch015. Pizzol, M. (2019). Deterministic and stochastic carbon footprint of intermodal ferry and truck freight transport across Scandinavian routes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 224, 626-636. Rawlinson, K. (2020). Dual-flush toilets ‘wasting more water than they save.’ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/29/dual-flush-toilets-wastingmore-water-than-they-save. Rodrigues, V. S., Pettit, S., Harris, I., Beresford, A., Piecyk, M., Yang, Z., & Ng, A. (2015). UK supply chain carbon mitigation strategies using alternative ports and multimodal freight transport operations. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 78, 40-56. Sasmaz, M. U., Karamıklı, A., & Akkucuk, U. (2021). The relationship between renewable energy use and health expenditures in EU countries. The European Journal of Health Economics, 1-11. Sasmaz, M. U., Sakar, E., Yayla, Y. E., & Akkucuk, U. (2020). The relationship between renewable energy and human development in OECD countries: A panel data analysis. Sustainability, 12(18), 7450. Sanukrishna, S. S., Vishnu, A. S., & Jose Prakash, M. (2017). Nanorefrigerants for energy efficient refrigeration systems. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 31(8), 3993-4001.

Creative Ecology

127

Shurrab, J., Hussain, M., & Khan, M. (2018). Green and sustainable practices in the construction industry: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 26(6), 1063-1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2018-0056. Shourideh, A. H., Ajram, W. B., Al Lami, J., Haggag, S., & Mansouri, A. (2018). A comprehensive study of an atmospheric water generator using Peltier effect. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress, 6, 14-26. Stella, C. (2019). Unfurling The Waste Problem Caused By Wind Energy. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-causedby-wind-energy. Wibowo, M. A., Handayani, M. U., & Mustikasari, A. (2018). Factors for implementing green supply chain management in the construction industry. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 11(4), 651-679. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2637. Wiguna, I. P. A., Rachmawati, F., Rohman, M. A., & Setyaning, L. B. (2021). A framework for green supply chain management in the construction sector: A case study in Indonesia. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 14(4), 788-807. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.3465. Yahoo News (2020). KFC turns receipts into napkins. https://news.yahoo.com /kfc-turnsreceipts-napkins-185314310.html. Zhang, B., Liu, C. H., Tang, J., Xu, Z., Ma, J., & Wang, W. (2017). Learning-based energyefficient data collection by unmanned vehicles in smart cities. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 14(4), 1666-1676.

Chapter 7

Creative Intuition in the Practice of Medicine: The Importance of Tolerating Uncertainty Katalin Varga1,and Gábor Ruzsa2 1Department

of Affective Psychology, Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary 2Doctoral School of Psychology, Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

Abstract Medical fields have traditionally mistrusted the use of intuition and creativity. Analytic thinking and strict adherence to the guidelines are often considered the only acceptable behavior, sometimes even banning intuitive creativity in medical problem solving. In this paper we attempt to change this view, demonstrating the indispensable role of intuitive thinking in medical practice. Besides theoretical arguments, we provide the results of a sample survey as well as verbatim accounts given by health care practitioners (HCPs) to illustrate the use of creative intuition in clinical decision making (DM). Among 688 HCPs who participated in our survey, overall, 39.3% reported the use of intuition in their practice, this proportion gradually increasing with work experience, from 26.0% for novice HCPs to 54.0% for HCPs with 20+ years of practice. The majority of respondents reported that they had never (47.6%) or just scarcely (43.5%) been educated regarding the nature of and the scope for intuitive decision making in medicine. We argue that creative intuition should be incorporated to the practice of medical DM, as this is indispensable due to the inherent 

Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected].

In: New Horizons in Creativity Editor: Shulamith Kreitler ISBN: 978-1-68507-751-8 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

130

Katalin Varga and Gábor Ruzsa uncertainty and complexity of medical scenarios. We make suggestions about improving the perception of intuition and creativity by the professional community and educating HCPs about its proper use in DM.

Keywords: intuition, creativity, decision making, health care practitioner, medical education “It is through logic we prove; it is through intuition we discover.” — Henri Poincaré, mathematician; as cited by Claxton (2000)⁠ “The analytic and the intuitive play off each other: The analytic grasps and holds, while the intuitive opens and embraces; the analytic has purpose, while the intuitive plays; the analytic measures and calculates, while the intuitive appreciates; the analytic builds, cuts, and controls, while the intuitive remains open-ended… the analytic is contained and directed by the ego and the will, while the intuitive tends toward self-transcendence and arises spontaneously… the analytic is willful, while the intuitive willing.” — Tobin Hart (2001)⁠

Introduction Intuition is non-analytical way of human information processing, which is based on implicit, quick and automatic cognitive processes. As an experiential way of thinking, intuition goes hand in hand with creativity, empathy, and aesthetic judgment (Epstein 2011)⁠. Nevertheless, for many decades it was largely ignored or mistrusted by academic and medical fields (Rew and Barrow 1987). For the last twenty years the study of intuition has become an increasingly popular topic in academic publications. Up to 1970 there were only 37 hits in PubMed for the word ‘intuition’, while between 2001 and 2010 this number increased to over a thousand (Radin 2011)⁠. Even in high stakes fields such as military planning the concept of intuitive decision making (IDM) has been widely adopted1 as a way of reducing planning time without significant loss in decision quality (Bakken and Haerem 2011; Klein 2011)⁠. As for the opinion 1

As formulated by the Norwegian Chief of Defense, this recent broadening of horizons was largely due to the fact that “we have moved from a situation in which the Armed Forces had a clearly defined and all-embracing threat which we were trained and equipped to resist – and which we could actually plan for – to a far more complex and unpredictable spectrum of possible scenarios” (Bakken and Haerem 2011, 130)⁠.

Creative Intuition in the Practice of Medicine

131

of the scientific public, a large majority of Nobel Prize laureates in physics, chemistry, and medicine – outstanding minds at the height of creativity – have explicitly declared their belief in scientific intuition (Marton, Fensham, and Chaiklin 1994). Intuition is also being relied on regularly in various fields of medicine, thus influencing the care patients receive (Clack 2009; Hall 2002). The use of intuitive practices is particularly common in areas such as intensive care or emergency medicine, which are highly complex and dynamic, and which often require instantaneous decision making (Bates and Young 2003; Dowding et al. 2009; Ruzsa, Szeverenyi, and Varga 2020). Nevertheless, discussing the role of IDM is rarely incorporated to the formal education and the vocational training received by health care practitioners (HCPs) (Smith 2006)⁠.

The Concept of Intuition and Intuitive Decision Making Intuition has been conceptualized in subtly different ways in distinctive fields of science (see Table 1 for an overview). Yet, if one considers the multitude of definitions and accounts of intuition, a few core elements clearly emerge. As for our discussion, we’ll focus on the following core aspects. 1. Intuition is insight unmediated by analytical thinking. This has been formulated by Radin (2011) as “(…) ways of knowing based on inner wisdom, direct understanding, or impressions that transcend rational analysis.” This central attribute also appears in definitions by Myers (2004) and Rew & Barrow (1987). 2. Intuitive decision making involves complex information processing and pattern recognition. This aspect has been elaborated in great detail by Randall (2009, 9): “A feeling or hunch regarding a situation that arises from unconscious processing of pieces of incomplete information that relies on one’s experience and abilities to recognize patterns, subtle trends, similar and dissimilar characteristics, relevant and irrelevant information, and preference for a broad perspective, all of which provide impetus to choose a particular course of action.” 3. Intuitive thought – often in the form of a new, creative solution – seems to appear “out of nowhere,” as if from some mystical source external to the person (Klein 1999). This is due to the fact that the cognitive processes underlying intuitive problem solving are largely unconscious.

132

Katalin Varga and Gábor Ruzsa

4. Intuitive insight is often accompanied by a strong sense of being right in one’s judgment or decision. This has been formulated by Shirley & Langan-Fox (1996) as “(…) feeling of knowing with certitude.” Similarly, Dewey in his philosophical work (1925, 244) gave account of a “(…) sense of rightness and wrongness.” 5. The way in which an intuitive insight or decision has been arrived at is difficult to explain verbally. This attribute is particularly important in the definitions by Randall (2009) and Stick & Dijksterhuis (2011). Table 1. Classical and modern definitions of intuition “(…) states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority.” (James 1902, 371)⁠ “(…) sense of rightness and wrongness.” (Dewey 1925, 244)⁠ “(…) process whereby the nurse knows something about the patient that cannot be verbalized, that is verbalized with difficulty or for which the source of knowledge cannot be determined.” (Young 1987, 52)⁠ “(…) knowledge of fact or truth as a whole; immediate possession of knowledge; and knowledge independent of the linear reasoning process.” (Rew and Barrow 1987, 60)⁠ (Intuitive thought) “involves rapid, unconscious data processing that combines the available information by ‘averaging’ it, has low consistency and is moderately accurate.” (Hamm 1988, 81)⁠ “(…) feeling of knowing with certitude.” (Shirley and Langan-Fox 1996, 564)⁠ “Intuition traditionally refers to a way of knowing through ‘immediate apprehension’, meaning to know without the usual constraints of space or time, and unmediated by the ordinary senses.” (Osbeck, 2001, 183)⁠ “(…) immediate knowledge without reasoned analysis.” (Myers 2004, 5)⁠ “(…) affectively charged judgments that arise through rapid, non-conscious, and holistic associations.” (Dane and Pratt 2007, 33)⁠ “Generally speaking, the prevailing literature would define intuition as a hunch or gut feeling that compels us to make a particular decision; however, we typically cannot verbalize how we arrived at that conclusion.” (Randall 2009, 5)⁠ “A feeling or hunch regarding a situation that arises from unconscious processing of pieces of incomplete information that relies on one’s experience and abilities to recognize patterns, subtle trends, similar and dissimilar characteristics, relevant and irrelevant information, and preference for a broad perspective, all of which provide impetus to choose a particular course of action.” (Randall 2009, 9)⁠ “(…) similar to the Greek words noēsisor noētikos, which refer to ways of knowing based on inner wisdom, direct understanding, or impressions that transcend rational analysis.” (Radin 2011 183)⁠ “We define intuition as the feeling of knowing what one has to do – go right instead of left, buy stock A rather than B, or not quite trust the person approaching – without necessarily being able to verbalize why.” (Strick and Dijksterhuis 2011, 28)⁠

Creative Intuition in the Practice of Medicine

133

Additionally, to these core elements, it is important to emphasize the distinction between intuitive and heuristic decision making. Intuition relies on the non-conscious processing of large amounts of complex information, whereas heuristic judgments are based on quick access to a restricted set of information (Pretz 2011).

Intuition as a Non-Analytical Way of Information Processing Besides theoreticians’ efforts to grasp the essence of intuition, increasing evidence accumulated in cognitive sciences over the last two decades has substantially improved our understanding of intuition as a way of information processing and problem solving. Dual-process models offer a suitable framework for exploring the nature of intuition and its role in human information processing (IP). Cognitiveexperiential self-theory (Epstein 2007), which is one of the most frequently cited models of this kind, identifies two IP systems: the experiential and the rational/analytic (see Table 2 for an overview). As mediated by these two modes of IP, humans construct two alternative representations of reality: the experiential, based on implicit beliefs acquired from personal experience, and the rational, based on explicit beliefs derived through conscious reasoning and learning. Evidence in cognitive neuroscience also supports the coexistence of two complementary systems of human IP: the reflexive and the reflective (Lieberman 2007). The reflexive system involves brain areas associated with implicit learning and non-conscious acquisition of knowledge. In contrast, the reflective system relies on brain areas associated with working memory, effortful serial processing, and deliberate efforts to override automatic processes (Pretz 2011). As considered within the framework of dual IP processes, intuition is closely related to the experiential/reflexive mode of functioning, and as such it is inherently non-conscious and non-analytical. The associational and indexing strategies employed in experiential IP make it possible to access and select relevant pieces of information without even being aware of the searching process. As one becomes expert in a field, increasingly specific neural networks of task-relevant brain areas become available, allowing one to solve problems in a more and more efficient, automated and internalized way (Strick and Dijksterhuis 2011).

134

Katalin Varga and Gábor Ruzsa

Table 2. Intuition from the perspective of cognitive experiential self-theory – based on Epstein (2011)⁠ Characteristics Level of consciousness Control over IP Encoding Style of IP Type of associations Relation with affect Way of operation

Acquisition of representations Orientation Mediation of behavior Speed of processing Resistance to change

Level of differentiation Level of integration

Way of experiencing

Way of validation

Experiential system (automatic learning) Preconscious Automatic Concrete: through images, metaphors, narratives Holistic Connections by similarity and contiguity Intimately associated with affect Operates by hedonic principle (what feels good) Schemata: learning from experience Outcome oriented By “vibes” from past experience Rapid: oriented toward immediate action Largely resistant: can change with repetitive or intense experience Crude: broad generalization gradient; categorical thinking Crude: situationally specific, organized in part by cognitiveaffective modules Passive and preconscious: we are seized by our emotions Self-evidently valid: experiencing is believing

Rational system (conscious reasoning) Conscious Deliberative Abstract: through symbols, words and numbers Analytic Cause and effect relations Affect free Operates by reality principle (what is logical and supported by evidence) Beliefs: conscious learning and logical inference More process oriented By conscious appraisal of events Slower: capable of long delayed action Less resistant: can change with speed of thought Higher: nuanced thinking Higher: organized in part by cross-situational principles Active and conscious: we believe that we are in control of thoughts Requires justification via logic and evidence

Research on naturalistic decision making has also shown that expertise is based on quick pattern matching – a mental operation too fast to be registered consciously, so that its outcome appears to emerge ‘out of nothing’ (Klein 1999). Thus, in expert DM a solution to a problem is often generated without the person being aware of his/her cognitive processes. Even though the mental processes underlying IDM are largely unconscious, their outcome does emerge to consciousness eventually. Once a possible solution to a problem has

Creative Intuition in the Practice of Medicine

135

been found, this information is conveyed in the form of feelings, sensations, and somatic markers (Vaughan 1979). The existence of these subtle signals has been demonstrated through the analysis of physiological measures (Damasio 1994).

Intuitive Decision Making in Medicine Decision making in medicine takes place in an inherently uncertain context. Often the information that would be necessary for coming to an analytically well-founded medical decision is unavailable (either because it was never received or it cannot be accessed when needed), unreliable (coming from a source of low or unknown credibility), ambiguous or conflicting (having several possible interpretations), or too complex to be synthesized and integrated (Klein 1999). Hall (2002)⁠ emphasizes that intuition plays an indispensable role in medical DM due to its inherent uncertainty. He distinguishes three major sources of uncertainty: technical, personal, and conceptual. These include, among others, (1) handling different patient needs competing for the same limited resources, (2) applying general criteria (e.g., guidelines) to the specific cases of individual patients, and (3) generalizing past experience to current situations. All these reasons make IDM likely to occur in the practice of medicine. Furthermore, HCPs are in many cases unsure about how uncertain they are – whence arises the concept of meta-uncertainty, referring to uncertainty about the extent to which one is uncertain about something. Yet, uncertainty is not the only justification for IDM. Prior research has identified a number of circumstances and conditions under which some degree of intuition might be necessary in order to come to an efficient solution (Bakken and Haerem 2011; Klein 1999; Myers 2004). These include the following: (1) in times of crisis; (2) under great time pressure; (3) under dynamically changing conditions; (4) when goals are ill-defined; (5) when there is a general lack of information; (6) when normative rules, standards, and protocols are unavailable; (7) when regular decision-making processes have broken down; (8) when there are a lot of interrelated perceptual aspects to be considered. Indeed, many of these conditions are present in the area of medical DM. A third reason for the use of intuition is its property that it often operates quickly and effectively in an interpersonal context (Myers 2004). Humans can make intuitive social judgments regarding other humans just in a couple of

136

Katalin Varga and Gábor Ruzsa

seconds; these judgments are based on facial expressions, gestures, tones of voice, smells, and other subtle cues that are processed extremely quickly. Hence, as medical DM is often performed in a social milieu, it seems natural that interpersonal intuition should be an important factor in the decisions made by HCPs (Clark, Potter, and McKinlay 1991). This aspect is clearly manifested in the account of a HCP interviewed for a study by Brawn (2000, 157): “Intuition (is) … picking up the feelings that somebody engenders in me, by the way they are talking to me, by the way they are presenting their story to me, by the way they are sitting and by the expression on their faces. (…) Pattern recognition, an awareness of the subjective response to patients, the sequential (or even simultaneous) elimination of possibilities, and the seemingly non-conscious reading of signals from many sources.” For all these reasons, the usual analytical mode of reasoning (relying on protocols and guidelines) is likely to be inadequate in many medical scenarios. Yet, obviously there are circumstances which do require the use of analytical DM, e.g., (1) when there is need for justifying one’s decision to other persons, (2) when it is essential to find the optimal solution (the first workable option is not satisfactory), or (3) when several persons have to work together and come to a common decision (Klein 1999)⁠. To conclude: medical situations are different as regards whether they can be dealt with more efficiently in an intuitive or in a rational/analytical way. The conservative approach treats every medical context as one calling for a purely analytical DM procedure with no scope for intuition. We have argued that this approach is unsatisfactory as the generally prescribed analytical DM procedure cannot be efficient in every situation. Indeed, due to their inherent complexity and high level of uncertainty, many medical scenarios call for some degree of intuition (Sadler-Smith 2008)⁠. Correspondingly (as we’ll demonstrate in this study), most of the instances of DM performed by HCPs contain some element of intuition.

Survey About the Use of Intuition in Health Care Our online survey was conducted in spring 2014, whereby HCPs employed in diverse medical fields and occupations in Hungary were asked to answer anonymously to the following questions:

Creative Intuition in the Practice of Medicine





 

137

Has the topic of intuitive decision making in medicine ever been discussed in your formal studies or at vocational trainings you have attended? Have you ever relied on intuitive decision making in your health care practice (i.e., has it ever occurred that you made a decision for which you couldn’t find a rational justification)? If yes, please describe the situation(s) in a few sentences. Please describe the way in which you came to a decision in the situation(s) mentioned.

As to the first question, respondents had to choose among the following three options: (1) ‘No, never’; (2) ‘Scarcely – only mentioned at an anecdotal level’; (3) ‘Yes, extensively – discussed in a broad theoretical and practical perspective’. As to the second question, a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ response was required. Besides, participants were asked to provide background data about their gender, their medical specialization, and the number of years of experience they had had in health care practice. As regards the open-ended questions, participants were free to elaborate their answers without limitation. As for the sampling procedure, we relied on chain-referral sampling. The link to the on-line survey was sent to HCPs in an informal way, with the help of undergraduate students, who had full discretion in searching for and choosing prospective survey participants. A total number of 728 responses were submitted to our survey and processed subsequently. After the exclusion of mistakenly submitted duplicates and responses from non-HCPs, the remaining 688 reports served as input for the data analysis. The majority (72.4%) of survey respondents were female. As regards the main occupational categories, our sample consisted of physicians (32.1%), nurses (33.9%), medical assistants (15.4%), and various other types of HCPs including paramedics, midwives, dentists, physiotherapists, pharmacists, psychologists, etc. (henceforth referred to as other HCPs). As for the distribution of respondents across medical specialties, the most frequent specialties were internal/general medicine (14.2%), emergency medicine (13.8%), surgery (9.2%), and general practice (8.3%). As for HCPs’ work experience, our sample exhibited a bimodal distribution, the majority of respondents being either novices (with 0-5 years of experience, 33.6%) or experts (with 20+ years of experience, 34.6%). The mean work experience was 14.1 years (median=13.6). As regards distinctive occupations, physicians’ and nurses’ average work experience (15.2 and 13.3 years, respectively) was relatively close to the overall sample mean, whereas

138

Katalin Varga and Gábor Ruzsa

medical assistants (with 18.4 years) were significantly more experienced, and other HCPs (with 10.1 years) were significantly less experienced.

Determinants of Intuitive Decision Making The primary variable of interest in our analysis was HCPs’ propensity to resort to IDM. Altogether 271 respondents (39.4%) reported ever having relied on intuition in their medical decisions, however, this proportion varied significantly across occupations (χ2(3) =22.5; p Chair-> Wood-.> Axe-> Chop -> Lamb...) to examine differences between participants, some of whose thought sequences rapidly diverge semantically from the starting stimulus word or “seed” and some who show less divergence. For example, with the seed word “candy,” a high diverging participant might give a sequence such as “candy -> store -> warehouse -> forklift -> safety” and a low diverging participant might give a sequence such as “candy -> sugar->

246

Ken Gilhooly

delicious -> yummy -> treat.” After just 4 steps one participant is considerably farther semantically from the “candy” seed (with “forklift”) than the other (with “yummy”). Gray, Anderson et al. (2019) measured the degree of what they label forward flow, by how semantically distant associates in a sequence tend to be from all their predecessors. Using a variety of creativity measures and a large group of participants (N= 1397), those who were high in the forward flow measure consistently scored higher on creativity tasks than did low forward flow participants.

Figure 1. Example semantic network. From Collins, A.M., and Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428. Reproduced with permission of the American Psychological Association.

Spreading activation is usually seen as involving multiple streams (or “chains” or “trains”) of associations and these streams would be more likely depart from the starting point and would lead to more novel associations when the networks are highly connected and have small world properties. It may be questioned as to whether there is a role for chance in precipitating novel combinations? The chance element is plausible because

Problem Solving and Creativity

247

semantic networks are highly interconnected, so that activation flows can go along multiple links at any one time with variable degrees of strength and which particular linkage will be most highly activated and so might enter consciousness cannot be predicted with any certainty. The most activated link out of, say 10s of possibilities, from any given node, will surely vary between individuals at the same time and between different times for the same individual. The complexity of the semantic network system would seem to guarantee intra-individual variability and the emergence of chance effects, leading to a degree of stochastic variability. This seems especially likely as we look at longer and longer chains or trains of associations, where each node has connections to 10s of other nodes; in such systems the number of different possible activation sequences grows exponentially with the number of steps in the sequence. Chance effects may arise from incidental external stimuli priming connections or by endogenous fluctuations in connection strengths and firing thresholds.

Neural Level At the neural level, the brain is estimated to comprise some 100 billion neurons (Herculano-Houzel, 2009) each of which can have many thousands of synaptic connections and so at the “hardware” level there is a highly connected network system with astronomically many possible patterns of moment-to-moment connections and so scope for considerable variability. Although, like the weather, the semantic network system may be deterministic at some very low level, in practice, it is best treated as a probabilistic system.

Phenomenological Level At the phenomenological level, as William James (1880, p.456) put it, with regard to the stream of consciousness, chance changes in content seem omnipresent: “Instead of thoughts of concrete things patiently following one another in a beaten track of habitual suggestion, we have the most abrupt cross-cuts and transitions from one to another, the most rarified abstractions and discriminations, the most unheard of combination of elements, the subtlest associations of analogy; in a word, we seem suddenly introduced into a

248

Ken Gilhooly seething cauldron of ideas, where everything is fizzling and bobbing about in a state of bewildering activity, where partnerships can be joined or loosened in an instant, treadmill routine is unknown, and the unexpected seems only law.”

Interestingly, James points to unstable brain processes as a major natural source of novel deas (1880, p.456) when he writes: “...new conceptions, emotions and active tendencies...are originally produced in the shape of random images, fancies, accidental outbirths of spontaneous variation in the functional activity of the excessively unstable human brain...”

In the next quoted paragraph, James (1880, p.456) argues that both useless associations (“grotesque whims” and “conceits”) and useful associations (“an intuition of the solution of a long-unsolved problem”) can arise by chance. “When walking along the street, thinking of the blue sky or the fine spring weather, I may either smile at some grotesque whim which occurs to me, or I may suddenly catch an intuition of the solution of a long-unsolved problem, which at that moment was far from my thoughts. Both notions are shaken out of the same reservoir, - the reservoir of a brain in which the reproduction of images in the relations of their outward persistence or frequency has long ceased to be the dominant law...The conceit perishes in a moment, and is forgotten. The scientific hypothesis arouses in me a fever of desire for verification...”

Recent Cognitive Theories and Types of Creative Problem Solving The two main cognitive theory approaches to understanding novel or creative problem-solving processes considered here in relation to types of creativity, are the Analytic-Thinking approach, particularly associated at present with Robert Weisberg, and the Blind Variation and Selective Retention (BVSR) approach, currently particularly associated with Dean K. Simonton. It will be argued that these approaches do not directly conflict with each other but rather focus on different aspects of the creative process, and so apply differentially to different types of creative problem.

Problem Solving and Creativity

249

Analytic-Thinking Approach Taking the Analytic-Thinking approach first, Weisberg (2006; 2020) stresses the role of everyday ordinary cognitive processes, such as, attending, noticing, perceiving, using working memory and long-term memory, learning, forgetting, deciding and so on, in reaching creative solutions. In the AnalyticThinking view, extraordinary novel or creative solutions arise, not from extraordinary processes, but from suitable controlled and conscious orchestration of ordinary, normal cognitive processes by highly motivated, knowledgeable people, usually over long periods of time. This approach emphasises the role of heuristic knowledge based searches for solutions, so that, typically, successful attempts are not wild, completely “outside the box” ideas, but are built on what the person has learned about the specific problem while working on it and on general domain knowledge; indeed, to emphasise rejection of the “outside-the-box” view of creativity, Weisberg’s (2020) recent book, is titled “Re-thinking creativity: Inside-the-box thinking as the basis for innovation.”

Blind Variation and Selective Retention (BVSR) Approach In contrast to the Analytic-Thinking theory (Weisberg, 2020) which takes a micro-level approach, focussed on intra-individual mental processes, Simonton’s Blind Variation and Selective Retention (BVSR) theory takes a more macro-level approach and does not specify how blind variation is actually carried out. The theory has been developed over a fairly long period since the mid-1970s (Simonton, 1975; 2010; 2018) and builds on earlier work by Donald T. Campbell (1960), which in its turn drew on many still earlier pre-cursors, including Alexander Bain (1874), Paul Souriau (1881), Ernst Mach (1896) and Henri Poincaré (1910), who all stressed the role of blind variation, trial-and-error, chance and serendipity in discovery and creativity. The BVSR approach proposes that blind trial-and-error search, for useful new combinations of ideas, is the key process underlying the generation of new ideas. Simonton (2021) acknowledges that blind search may result from any of dozens of mechanisms such as divergent thinking, remote association, mind wandering, analogy, tinkering etc., but his theory deals with the more abstract level of generic combinatorial processes and procedures without specifying any in particular.

250

Ken Gilhooly

What is meant by “blind” in this context? Simonton (2010) proposed that a method for generating actions or trials is blind if the probability of an action being generated is independent of its being selected for retention (i.e., being useful to a solution). In other words, if there is no correlation between the value of an action or trial and its likelihood of being tried out, then the search or trial-and-error variation is blind. If a blind trial is useful, then that outcome will be surprising and non-obvious and so will boost the creativity assessment of the trial, according to Simonton’s formula that Creativity = Novelty x Value x Surprisingness. In line with its emphasis on the importance of blind processes leading to novel and surprising (i.e., unforeseen or non-obvious) solutions, the BVSR approach is consistent with a major role for surprising, accidental, or chance events, as in serendipity, in reaching new states of knowledge.

Relating Analytic-Thinking, BVSR, and Types of Creative Problems The Analytic-Thinking and the BVSR approaches have rarely engaged in direct comparisons with each other, apart from two occasions when papers by Simonton were target articles for commentaries. These were Simonton’s (2007) paper on the creation of Picasso’s Guernica and Simonton’s (2014) paper on Edison’s productivity over his career, as indexed by patents granted. Weisberg commented on these from the Analytic-Thinking perspective (Weisberg and Haas, 2007; Weisberg, 2015b) and Simonton responded (2007 b; 2015). In this dialogue there were some accommodations between views. Weisberg (2015b) accepted a role for blind trial-and-error, at least in the final stages of some creative problem solving and indeed had argued as long ago as 1973 (Weisberg and Suls, 1973) that because creative thinking involves producing new things, “there must be a point where the would-be creator goes into the unknown.” Coming from the other direction, Simonton (2015) accepted a role for knowledge and heuristic search in narrowing the space of possibilities, which, if not narrowed to one possibility, must ultimately be searched blindly. Both approaches see roles for random inputs and from serendipity; but differ as to the necessity of blind search. The Analytic Thinking approach allows creative solutions to be reached on the basis of heuristic knowledge driven search with or without blind search, while the BVSR approach sees blind search, which can involve serendipity, as essential to creativity.

Problem Solving and Creativity

251

Creative Problem types, degree of blind Trial and Error (T & E) and Knowledge Dependent Search 10 9 BIg-C 8 7 6 Pro-C T & E Search 5 4 Little-c 3 2 1 Min Cr 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Knowledge Dependent Search

Figure 2. Schematic representation of mixtures of blind Trial-and-Error and Knowledge Dependent Search in Minimally Creative (Min Cr), Little-C, Pro-C and Big-C Creativity. Scales: 0 = Low; 10 = High.

It can be argued that the two main theoretical approaches, BVSR and Analytic-Thinking do not directly conflict with each other, but rather focus on different aspects of creative problem solving; thus, the blind search aspect is the focus of BVSR and the knowledge driven, heuristic search aspect is the focus of Analytic-Thinking. Another way of describing the solving process in the Analytic-Thinking approach is as having a strong “knowledge dependency.” By this, I mean, requiring use of knowledge, either brought to the task, as in prior expert knowledge, or in the form of task knowledge acquired while working on it, to aid in developing possible actions and in selecting amongst possible actions. The suggestion is that minimally creative problems are typically low in “knowledge dependency” and in “blind search,” whereas highly creative (Big-C) problems involve a high degree of involvement of “knowledge dependency” and of “blind search” (albeit in directions suggested by knowledge). Thus, a very simple, minimally creative problem would involve very little search, either blind or heuristic, and would not depend much, if at all, on prior knowledge or on knowledge acquired on the task; on the other hand, a highly creative (Big-C) problem, would involve

252

Ken Gilhooly

extensive search (blind and heuristic) and would depend very much on both prior knowledge and task knowledge acquired while on the task. Little-c and Pro-C creative problems would involve intermediate mixtures of knowledge dependent and blind trial-and-error search. See Figure 2 for a schematic representation of typical placements of minimal, little-c, Pro-C and Big-C creative problems with reference to degrees of blind search and knowledge dependent search. To re-iterate, BVSR and Analytic-Thinking do not directly conflict with each other, but rather focus on different aspects of creative problem solving, viz., the blind search aspect and the knowledge driven, heuristic search aspect respectively.

Conclusion Although all problems require some degree of creativity, it is useful to distinguish among minimally creative problems, little-c creative problems, moderately creative or Pro-C problems and Big-C creative problems. “Problems” can vary in many ways, principally in terms of definedness, scale, extent to which hierarchical or flat, extent to which restructuring is needed or not, whether knowledge-rich or knowledge-lean, and the types of searches involved (blind or knowledge dependent). It is suggested that minimally creative problem solving is low on “knowledge dependency” and on “blind search,” whereas more creative problem solving involves a high degree of involvement of both “knowledge” (from expertise or from working on the task) and of “blind search” (within directions guided by knowledge). New creative combinations of concepts can be seen as arising from flows of activation over semantic networks which can bring new combinations into consciousness. Two broad theories stress different aspects of creative problem solving –as largely guided by knowledge and expertise with relatively small role for blind trial-and-error (Analytic Thinking), or as largely a matter of blind trial-and-error search, with a relatively lesser role for knowledge (Blind Variation and Selective Retention).

References Bain, A. (1874). The senses and the intellect. 3rd Edition. New York: Appleton. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: myths and mechanisms. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.

Problem Solving and Creativity

253

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380-400. Collins, A. M. and Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428. Duncker, K. (1935). Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens. Berlin: Springer. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58, 1-113. Gilhooly, K., Lyddy, F., Pollick, F., and Buratti, S. (2022). Cognitive psychology. 2nd Edition. London: McGraw-Hill. Gilhooly, K. J. and Gilhooly, M. L. (2021). Creativity and aging. New York: Academic Press. Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S., and Wynn, V. E. (2007). Divergent thinking: strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 611-625. Gray, K., Anderson, S., Chen, E. E., Kelly, J. M., Christian, M. S., Patrick, J., ...and Lewis, K. (2019). “Forward flow”: a new measure to quantify free thought and predict creativity. American Psychologist, 74, 539-554. Herculano-Houzel, S. (2009). The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled up primate brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3: 31. Howard, R. W. (2012). Longitudinal effects of different types of practice on the development of chess expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 359-369. James, W. (1880). Great men and their environment. Atlantic Monthly, 46, 441-449. Johnson, S. (2014). Where good ideas come from: The natural history of innovations. London: Penguin Books. Kaufman, J. C., and Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1-12. Kenett, Y. N. (2018). Investigating creativity from a semantic network perspective. In Kapoula, Z. (Ed.), Exploring transdisciplinarity in art and sciences. Munich: Springer International Publishing AG. Kenett, Y. N., and Faust, M. (2019). A semantic network cartography of the creative mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 271-274. Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In, Kaufman, J. C., Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity, pp.20-47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mach, E. (1896). On the part played by accident in inventions and discovery. The Monist, 6, 161-175. McCrae, R. R., and Costa, Jr., P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. (pp. 825-847). In Hogan, R., Johnson, J. A., and Stephen, R. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review. 69, 220-232. Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 2, 60-67. Ogburn, W. F. and Thomas, D. (1922). Are inventions inevitable ? A note on social evolution. Political Science Quarterly, 37, 83-98.

254

Ken Gilhooly

Parker-Jones, O., Afaro-Almagro, F., and Jbabdi, S. (2018). An empirical 21 st century evaluation of phrenology. Cortex, 106, 26-35. Poincaré, H. (1910). Mathematical creation. The Monist, 20, 321-333. Schilling, M. A. (2005). A “small world” network model of cognitive insight. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 131-154. Simonton, D. K. (1975). Sociocultural context of individual creativity: a transhistorical time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1119-1133. Simonton, D. K. (2007a). The creative imagination in Picasso’s Guernica sketches: Monotonic improvements or nonmonotonic variants ? Creativity Research Journal, 19, 329–344. Simonton, D. K. (2007b). Picasso’s Guernica creativity as a Darwinian process: Definitions, clarifications, misconceptions, and applications. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 381–384. Simonton, D. K. (2015a). Thomas Edison’s creative career: The multilayered trajectory of trials, errors, failures, and triumphs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 2-14. Simonton, D. K. (2015b). “So we meet again!”—Replies to Gabora and Weisberg. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 25-34. Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 156-179. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office criteria seriously: a quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97-106. Simonton, D. K. (2018). Creative ideas and the creative process: Good news and bad news for the neuroscience of creativity. In R. E. Jung and O. Vartarian (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of the neuroscience of creativity. (pp. 9-18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2021). Serendipity and creativity in the arts and sciences: A combinatorial analysis. In W. Ross and S. Copeland (Eds.), The art of serendipity. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Souriau, P. (1881). Theorie de l’invention. Paris: Hachette. Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36, 311-322. Travers, J., and Milgram, S. (1969). An experimental study of the small world problem. Sociometry, 32, 425-443. Weisberg, R. W., and Suls, J. M. (1973). An information processing model of Duncker’s candle problem. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 255-276. Weisberg, R. W. (2015a). Expertise, nonobvious creativity, and ordinary thinking in Edison and others: Integrating blindness and sightedness. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 15-19. Weisberg, R. W., and Hass, R. (2007). We are all partly right: Comment on Simonton. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 345–360. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Weisberg, R. W. (2015). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 111-124.

Problem Solving and Creativity

255

Weisberg, R. W. (2020). Re-thinking creativity: inside-the-box thinking as the basis for innovation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wolf, G. (1996). The next insanely great thing: Interview with Steve Jobs. Wired, February 1996 edition. https://www.wired.com/1996/02/jobs-2/. Retrieved November 04, 2021.

Chapter 12

Humor and Creativity Arie Sover Communication Department, The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel Israeli Society for Humor Studies, Israel

Abstract This article examines the connection between humor and creativity. The article is divided into three parts. The first part is theoretical and discusses studies that have examined whether there is a connection between humor and creativity, and the answer is positive in all of them. Creative people have been found to decipher and produce humor more than others. A link was also found between intelligence and the absorption and creation of humor. The second part explains the origins of humor and describes its foundations in the connection between a sense of humor and the human defense mechanism. The third part deciphers humorous images and texts to empirically examine the cognitive processes that are created during the absorption of a humorous situation.

Keywords: humor, creativity, intelligence, cognitive processes, laughter

Introduction Every person, wherever he is, creates things. Some are simple and others more complex. A creation can be made by a toddler scribbling on the wall, a child sculpting in the sand, a musician improvising a melody, or a researcher coming 

Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected].

In: New Horizons in Creativity Editor: Shulamith Kreitler ISBN: 978-1-68507-751-8 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

258

Arie Sover

up with a new idea. All these productions can be called creativities. They are not ordinary and everyday actions, and by their nature they break a routine and produce a momentary or ongoing new reality. Is this what we mean when we use the word creativity? The definition of creativity is elusive and difficult to formulate or quantify. When is thinking or action perceived as routine and when is it defined as creative? Where is the line between the two? Do mental originality and effectiveness define a creative person (Runco and Jaeger 2012)? Does being creative means inventing world-class solutions or ideas like those conceived by Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein? Is it possible to add ordinary people who work in organizations or business companies and who have found exceptional solutions to questions in their field to the inventors’ list? Despite the difficulty of defining creativity, here are a few options such as creativity is a process in which original ideas are produced that relate to a given situation (Schmajuk, Aziz, and Bates 2009). Products of creative thinking can be intellectual such as playwriting or scientific research, as well as technical products like product invention or patent registration, or changes in perceptions or processes, such as organizational change. The product of creativity can be an idea, a conceptualization, an artistic form, or a theory. Creativity is the basis of many inventions in science, technology, and art, as well as the basis of new solutions to common problems in a person’s daily life (Zabelina et al. 2016). One of the expressions of creativity is the ability to improvise (Lewis and Lovatt 2013). This could be an improvisation by a stand-up comedian on stage or a musical improvisation, since it requires a musician to create an unexpected piece of music without prior intention (Eisenberg and Thompson 2011). Creativity is influenced by a variety of variables including cognitive abilities, personality structure, cultural background, and mental and physical state. For example, a good mood can increase creativity (Baas, De Dreu, and Nijstad 2008; Baron and Byrne 2000; Douglas, Bore, and Munro 2016). Dealing with a problem can be a trigger for creative thinking (Chakravarty 2010). Many of the halakhic interpretations and solutions in the Talmud are based on creative thinking (Sover 2021: 19–23). Usually, people are creative in the field in which they specialize or are proficient, or it is their main field of practice although there are exceptions. Creativity depends on specific knowledge and skills (Chakravarty 2010). Some people are creative by nature and others are not. Creative people look for solutions to any problem or situation; they also have an active and

Humor and Creativity

259

enterprising attitude. They are open to new information; they are also curious and are keen to be exposed to new challenges and opportunities. They enjoy exploring and reorganizing different options and using unexpected solutions. People with extraordinary creativity usually have a high motivation to find solutions to problems even while taking risks (Weitao, Zsuzsika, and Bernhard 2020). Creative people tend to challenge conventions. A creative person will collect and organize information when breaking conventions to discover new and complex relationships between data (Boot et al. 2017). Craft defines creativity as a way of coping with everyday challenges and an approach to life which is driven to find solutions in all situations. According to Craft, creativity is an approach to life that involves “possibility thinking” which characterizes an approach to being creative (Craft 2002; Craft, McConnonb, and Matthews 2012). The study of creativity is spread over many fields of knowledge, such as medicine, psychology, sociology, folklore, literature, poetry, management, education, communication, and economics; it also includes various aspects including psychological, cognitive physiological, and philosophical (Hassin‐ Baer and Inzelberg 2014). The foundations for these studies of creativity can be attributed to J. P. Guilford. According to Guilford’s structure of intellect (SI) theory, creativity is an intellectual/cognitive activity that he termed divergent thinking. Guilford divided divergent thinking into four categories of abilities: Fluency (the ability to produce many ideas fluently); Flexibility (the ability to propose a variety of ideas); Originality (the ability to produce unusual ideas); and Elaboration (the ability to develop ideas) (Guilford 1959). Takeuchi et al. (2020), argue that creative thinking is based on two processes that are different from each other. The first one is the creation of new things through divergent thinking (DT), which produces multiple solutions for a particular problem or task. The second is convergent thinking (CT), which clings to the familiar and the known (stereotypical thinking, which only leads to one possible solution to a problem) (Takeuchi et al. 2020; Zhang, Sjoerds and Hommel 2020; Cropley 2006). The development of science and the advancement of humanity are based on the ability and daring of creative human beings to dismantle accepted cognitive patterns while exploring new ways that turn in previously unknown directions. Creativity requires a balance between flexibility and perseverance in information processing (Boot et al. 2017).

260

Arie Sover

Methods This article is divided into three parts: the first part examines the theoretical studies that are concerned with the relation between humor, creativity, and intelligence. The second part explains the origins of humor and describes how its foundations lie in the connection between a sense of humor and the human defense mechanism. The third part is empirical, which tries to understand the cognitive processes that are effectuated when deciphering humorous pictures and texts.

A Sense of Humor A sense of humor helps humans to decipher and produce humorous situations. The concept of a sense of humor has many meanings. A sense of humor represents more than one human trait––sometimes there is a connection between them and, sometimes, they are completely different (Martin 2003). To say that someone has a good or a bad sense of humor reveals more about their personality than their humor. When we say a person who has a sense of humor, we usually mean that they have two important qualities: one, that they are able to deal with easy or difficult challenges that life presents in a humorous way, and two, that they have the ability to produce humor so that other people will laugh at them (Humke and Schaefer 1996; Thorson and Powell 1993). A sense of humor is one of the most important personal characteristics of human beings. If people are asked if they have a sense of humor, almost everyone will answer positively. Some argue that people with a sense of humor tend to decipher and respond to humorous situations faster than others (Kozbelt and Nishioka 2010). Also, someone who responds to humorous situations is not necessarily the one who produces humor (Martin 2007: 191–195; Ruch 2007). It is important to note that the statements “he/she has a sense of humor or has no sense of humor” are popular but limited statements of factual truth. Every human being, except for exceptions such as people with low-functioning autism, has a sense of humor (Reddy, Williams, and Vaughan 2002). Which means everyone has the following two traits: they can laugh at humorous situations that others create, and they can produce such situations. The dosage may vary. There are those who laugh more than others, there are those who produce more humor than others, and there are those who also laugh a lot and

Humor and Creativity

261

produce humor more than others. These people are said to have a welldeveloped sense of humor.

Humor and the Creative Mind Humor is closely linked with creativity: both require finding solutions that link disparities in an original way and thereby elicit surprise (O’Quin and Derks 2011; Rouff 1975). There is similarity in the way the brain processes humor and creativity. Humor encourages children’s creativity. Children who are involved in finding new, novel, and strange ways of making sense also have the ability to create something. It is also said that solving problems is easy for children with a better sense of humor (McGhee 1979: 45–48). When it comes to humor, the brain activates in two different ways: deciphering humor and producing humor. There are those for whom humor production is their profession, such as stand-up comedians, writers, humorous writers on social networks, and cartoonists. To produce and decipher humor, the brain needs to act in an unconventional way. That is, it is necessary to make connections between certain parts of the brain that do not usually cooperate in routine rational thinking. Only these connections can produce “humor products.” Those that produce humor know in advance that the message they want to convey will be deciphered by some or all of those who are intended to consume their humor productions. In fact, humorous dialogue between the producers and the consumers is based on a meta-language that is understandable to both sides. When we place normative language against the meta-language of humor, we confront each other with two contradictory cognitive behaviors: conventional thinking versus unconventional thinking. On the one hand, the brain operates in well-organized rational patterns and rejects anything that does not conform to these patterns. On the other, the mind acts contrary to the normative activity and breaks the rules of the game and conduct itself in a way in which impossible cognitive and intellectual connections become possible (Sover 2011). The cognitive process that the brain goes through to decipher the humor is similar to the process that it goes through to produce humor, but this time in the opposite way: from the final product (the humorous product) to its deciphering. In both cases, the brain sometimes activates through convergent thinking and sometimes through divergent thinking depending on the type of humor (Kellner and Benedek 2017).

262

Arie Sover

Humor and the Creative Personality Many studies have been written about humor and creativity. From them, one can learn about the creative personality of a person who produces humor. The ability to produce humor is directly related to mental flexibility and openness and the need to experience something new (Sutu, Phetmisy, and Damian 2020; Nusbaum, Silvia, and Beaty 2017; Greengross, Martin, and Miller 2012). The flexibility that is expressed when creating humor also has implications for workplaces. Employees with a well-developed sense of humor can formulate creative solutions to problems or questions related to their workplace and contribute to increasing productivity (Twidale 1986). There may be two different pathways that converge when coming up with funny ideas. One pathway involves the ability to process information quickly, as well as the ability to be verbally fluid. Another pathway involves the tendency to create novel, unconventional ways of rendering information to capture aesthetic aspects of humor (Sutu, Phetmisy, and Damian 2020). The ability to produce humor (the ability to generate funny ideas) varies substantially between people, but the sources of individual differences in humor production remain obscure (Kreitler 2018: 92–93; Christensen et al. 2018). The response to humorous situations depends, among other things, on the receiver’s personality structure, mental and physical state at the time of absorption, and on their attitude to the humorous content. Some people do not like jokes of a certain kind––sexual or offensive, for example––and there are those who perceive deciphering cartoons as annoying. It is also known that there is a difference in the preferred type of humor between women and men (Herzog 1999; O’Connell 1960). Another element to consider is the level of social anxiety (SA) or non-social anxiety (NSA) of the receiver, which may increase or decrease their reaction level (Heerey and Kring 2007; Hofmann and Bartolo 2014). For all of the above and other reasons, the reaction to humor can be a smile, laughter, a large degree of laughter, laughter with the whole body, a negative reaction, or a lack of reaction (if the receiver does not think that the joke is funny). To analyze humorous situations, one must distinguish between the laughter that is the reaction to humor and the humor that triggers the laughter (Attardo 2003).

Humor and Creativity

263

Humor––Creativity––Intelligence As we have seen, there are many studies that attribute creativity to the creation of humor. The connection between humor production and intelligence has been discussed in a great deal of research (Ruch and Heintz 2019; Howrigan and MacDonald 2008). One of the two features, or a combination of the two, predicts an ability to produce humor. Greengross and Miller (2011) reflect on the influential role of intelligence with regard to the ability to come up with funny ideas (see also, Hofmann, and DiBartolo 2018). CHC factors (testing cognitive abilities), taken together, show a substantial effect on the production of humor, suggesting that intelligence, creativity, and humor are closely linked (Greengross and Miller 2011; Hofmann and Di Bartolo 2018). Intelligence and creativity in a person are predictors of the potential to produce humor. Specifically, divergent thinking, fluency, and creativity, as well as crystallized intelligence, reflect the unique variety of the funniness of humor productions. These people come up with funny and witty ideas much more easily than others (Kellner and Benedek 2017). In a study analyzing data from 31 stand-up comedians and 400 college students on the Big Five personality traits (NEO-FFI-R), using the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ), a humor production task, verbal intelligence, and, for the comedians, a measure of professional success, comedians scored higher than the students on verbal intelligence, humor production ability, and each of the four styles of humor. Among comedians, openness, agreeableness, and extraversion correlated positively with affiliative humor, and intelligence correlated negatively with self-defeating humor. Professional success was predicted positively by affiliative humor and negatively by self-defeating humor (Greengross, Martin, and Miller 2012). A sense of humor and the ability to create humor develop from infancy. From the age of six to nine months, the onset of the development of humor in children can be seen. Humor will continue to develop as the child grows up and acquires new knowledge and skills (McGhee 1979: 45–48). Children combine humor and creativity at almost every opportunity and in most games. The games that toddlers produce are inherently creative because they are not captive to norms, rules, and laws; they break almost every possible boundary with respect to what an adult person sees as unacceptable action or behavior. Huizinga contends that the main characteristic of play is that it is free, and in fact, it is freedom (Huizinga 1938: 8). Toddlers and young children first expression of humor is based on incongruity. The toddler learns what is right and laughs at what may be

264

Arie Sover

“wrong.” As a toddler’s brain grows and develops, they acquire new knowledge and skills such as walking, eating independently, or learning a language. Each new knowledge forms the basis for creating new humor. When they learn human names, they deliberately mispronounce or distort them, and it makes them laugh and have fun. The essence of children’s humor is a spontaneous, rather than rehearsed, reaction to circumstantial experiences. Coates and Coates found that children’s reactions were inextricably linked to language which celebrates their cognitive and linguistic skills as well as their flexibility, willingness to experiment, and the richness of their imagination (Coates and Coates 2020). Along with the humor based on mismatch, toddlers also produce creative connections between elements that are normatively unrelated. They can smear paint on the wall, put a toy in their mother’s shoe, and comb themselves with a banana. Play is a type of creativity that is similar to humor. It is argued that play can be conceived as “humor with action,” whose product forms a combination that is both imaginative and funny. In addition, its creative process is characterized by a shift in positive moods from cheerfulness in the incubation stage to enthusiasm in the illumination stage (Hammershøj 2021). As we have seen, studies link deciphering and producing humor to creative ability and intelligence. However, most of these studies have been performed in laboratory conditions and are limited in the types of humor they present to their subjects––usually cartoons, pictures, or jokes––and they do not distinguish between the cognitive effort required to decipher these types of humor. There are humorous situations that are simple to decipher and based on incongruity, such as a toddler wearing their father’s big shoes or a woman whose hat is flying in the wind. To decipher this kind of humor, there is not necessarily a need for divergent thinking and high intelligence, as it is possible to be satisfied with convergent thinking. Hence, even people who are not particularly creative or intelligent can decipher such humor and also create it. In contrast, there are complex humorous situations that are more difficult to decipher, such as jokes, and where higher cognitive abilities and divergent thinking are needed in collaboration with convergent thinking (Kellner and Benedek 2017; Greengross and Miller 2011; Wu and Chen 2019). Following the interest in brain processes in the context of creative activity, there has been an increase in research into the connection between activity in the creative brain and the production of humor (Chen, Chen, and Roberts 2019; Wu and Chen, 2019). Studies show that the brain activity that occurs in creative processes is similar to the activity that occurs when decoding humor

Humor and Creativity

265

(Perchtold-Stefan et al. 2020). The research on activities that take place in different parts of the brain when deciphering or creating humor is currently limited and therefore there is plenty to discover. Nor are there any findings that exist which provide the tools to produce humor or increase a sense of humor to enable someone to deal with difficulties or crises in their life.

Visual Humor and Creativity Humor is directly connected to our five senses. However, most states of humor are created through the two dominant senses: the sense of sight and the sense of hearing. The rest of the senses contribute little to creating or deciphering humor. It follows that, when we discuss humor, we usually mean these two types of humor states. There are similarities and differences between visual and verbal humor. When it comes to deciphering humor, both are based on cognitive models and on creative cognitive processes. The sense of sight is the most developed of the five senses, and a person’s decoding speed is higher in visual humor than in verbal humor. The relative ease in deciphering visual humor usually occurs in simple humorous situations such as humor based on incongruity. For example, a costume or mask that changes the face or the human body in a grotesque way is very quickly identified as a humorous state. Examples of this kind can be found in the apps that are used to create funny faces. Seeing a person behave strangely in contrast to normative behavior can also be perceived as a humorous situation (see Sover 2018). A relatively low level of cognitive activity required to decipher such situations. The brain perceives the unusual––a mask or strange body behavior––and compares it to the cognitive model and recognizes a gap between them. We will term this a comic gap. The larger the comic gap, the greater the laughter (Sover 2009: 91–93).

Decoding Visual Humor The decoding field of visual humor lies in the visual worldview that exists in the person who decodes the humor. This visual worldview is divided into models, each belonging to a particular field or subject. Visual humor is created when the person perceives an unusual situation that is different from the visual model existing in their mind. Visual models begin to be built from the moment a baby is born. At a later stage when the toddler learns to speak, he will develop

266

Arie Sover

verbal models. These models will continue to evolve or change throughout life. The more developed a person’s knowledge, the more numerous and diverse his models will be. Deciphering visual humor, or a combination of visual and verbal humor, requires a certain level of cognitive effort. The amount of effort will depend on the complexity of the humor that needs to be deciphered. Here are some examples:

A - Examples Based on Incongruities In Figure 1, the little boy is drawing, and in the process, he covers himself with paint. When we compare the image with our cognitive model of cleanliness, this situation is perceived as unusual and humorous. Deciphering the humor in this picture is at the lowest level of cognitive effort. The gap between the unusual and our model is perceived as a comic gap and so the reaction will be a smile or a laugh. One does not have to be particularly intelligent or particularly creative to decipher this kind of humorous situation and so one can settle for convergent thinking here.

Figure 1. I know what means to be a painter.

The unusual aspect in Figure 2 is the baby who “uses” a cell phone. Here, too, the unusual is based on incongruity. The older person sitting next to the baby intensifies the unusual. Deciphering the humor in this type of image is a little more difficult than with the previous example because there is another person here who needs to be considered because of his influence on the extent of the comic gap. Despite this, decoding is still relatively easy and does not require a special cognitive effort.

Humor and Creativity

267

Figure 2. Dad, you pushed the wrong button.

B - Examples That Require a Greater Cognitive Effort to Decipher the Humorous State Deciphering Figure 3 is slightly more complex compared to the previous example but is still at a relatively low-intensity level. The answer to Person A’s question: “Are you sure you know how to upload the files to the cloud?” is given in the drawing by the action of Person B. Person B tries to fire filing cabinets and documents into the clouds in the sky. The humor, in this case, is based on the double meaning of two words: one refers to the word cloud whose one meaning is the internet cloud and the other is a cloud in the sky. A second double interpretation is based on the word files: one meaning is the files on a computer and the other is paper documents. The humor in this painting is based on a double mismatch. Person B, who intends to throw filing cabinets filled with documents into the sky, misinterprets the two words: cloud and files. The misinterpretation of the two words is perceived as a major incongruity that creates a large comic gap, and thus the unusual situation is perceived by the receiver as a humorous one. Decoding this humor is performed through divergent thinking, although it does not require too much complex thinking or a high level of creativity to decipher it.

268

Arie Sover

Figure 3. We are following the instructions.

Figure 4. The future is already here.

Deciphering the humor in Figure 4 is even more complex than Figure 3. To decipher the humor in this example it is necessary for the viewer/reader to have a cultural charge on which they can base their deciphering of the cartoon. To understand the written question “What the hell is it”, the receiver needs to decipher the painting’s content. This act of deciphering works on two levels: in the first, the receiver must understand that the children’s electronic devices indicate that they belong to another advanced age. On the second level, the viewer/reader compares the “other age” to the book that belongs to a previous age and only then do they understand the question and solve the problem.

Humor and Creativity

269

Figure 5. There is a good answer for every question.

Figure 5 is more complex than Figure 4. The viewer/reader of the painting should also come from a particular cultural background to be able to decipher the humor. In this case, however, the receiver needs to activate more complex cognitive mechanisms. Figure 5 has several solutions or layers of thinking. In the first layer, the receiver asks himself an unwritten question which is “Why is the bird lonely?” This question is a result of looking at the painting. The second unwritten question the receiver asks himself is “Why does the bird stand in the air without a wire backrest?” The written answer is “because he uses WIFI”. This is not the end of the process. The receiver’s brain should now make a connection between no wire to the backrest and that the WIFI operates without a wire. There is no connection between the two meanings. The receiver’s brain understands that this is a play on words centered on the word thread, which is not written, and he needs to invent it. This is how the receiver deciphers the humorous situation through creative thinking. Reaching a solution causes a physiological response (smiling or laughter) which is accompanied by a sense of pleasure. In all the examples we have seen, the humorous situation is always contrary to our models or our normative way of thinking. The normative is not funny. The exceptional has the potential to be perceived as a state of humor and, to decipher it, one must activate extraordinary, creative (sometimes simple and sometimes complex) thinking mechanisms.

270

Arie Sover

Verbal Humor as a Creative Meta-Language The language of humor is a meta-language. The meta-language of humor is exceptional. It is a language that has not been taught in any school; it has evolved over the years and continues to evolve. It is the result of mental creativity, and it is designed to allow communication between human beings. Verbal humor requires higher cognitive and intellectual skills than visual humor (McGhee 1979: 65–79); it is therefore also more difficult to decipher and produce than visual humor. The language of humor is used for the following purposes: a, to criticize the social and cultural norms in which we live; b, to criticize social and/or personal phenomena that exceed our norms or expectations; and c, to challenge the brain and thereby train it, perfect it, and make it a more creative and smarter. Such a brain offers new cognitive pathways for the benefit of the individual and the society in which they live. The language of humor is a reversal or deviation from the verbal norm. Verbal humor, on the one hand, undermines the linguistic norms and, on the other, is an excellent tool for enriching the verbal range of normative language. Humor is strongly associated with verbal language skills. The incongruities between different levels of semantic meanings play an important role in the creation of verbal humor creation (Attardo and Raskin 1991; Ruch, Attardo, and Raskin 1993; Wyer and Collins 1992). Humorous discourse and jokes are often based on double meanings (Bergson 1975: 51–100). Puns exploit phonological similarities between semantically unrelated words to produce a funny solution (Menninghaus et al. 2014; Gernsbacher and Robertson 1995). Verbal humor is a byproduct of normative language. There is a close connection between language and thinking, both influence each other. The greater the linguistic richness, the more complex and diverse the thinking, the greater the creative ability, and, as a result, the meta-language of humor is enriched. This is similar to the ability to produce music: the more you control characters and groups of characters, the more creatively and diversely you can express yourself musically. There is not one type of verbal humor as it has sub-genres that are distinct from each other. The differentiation lies in the cognitive and intellectual effort that one has to invest to decipher its complexity. Deciphering verbal humor depends on the level of verbal knowledge (language knowledge) and general knowledge, as well as the cognitive abilities of each one. An appreciation of verbal humor also depends on personal and environmental factors (Sover

Humor and Creativity

271

2009: 88–91). Verbal humor appears in two ways: written and spoken. Deciphering verbal humor through audio is easier than deciphering written humor. A sense of hearing develops long before acquiring reading skills. Written verbal humor, on the other hand, requires mastery when reading a text and depends on the complexity (the level) of the text and the cognitive abilities of the brain. The humor in both options, written or auditory, is based on disrupting the presumed linguistic continuity (Ibid.: 152–154). Many humorous jokes and sentences are based on this principle. For example, if we count digits, one, two, three, four, five, six, by digit three or four we assume a continuation, that is, a sequential increase of digits. Disrupting this assumption with a non-expected digit has the potential to become humorous. Below are several types of jokes, which use different techniques and are based on disrupting the presumed linguistic continuity: The English Minister of the Interior affectionately addresses little Bobby, the son of the Queen of England Minister: Tell me, Bobby, to what number do you know how to count? Bobby begins to count: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, prince, queen, king. * The father says to his daughter: My dear child, do not marry this guy. He is also crippled, both ugly and orphaned Daughter: Father, the main thing is love. I am not interested in his appearance or his family background. Father: But do you not think he suffered enough?

The first two sentences of the last joke cause the reader to construct an assumed linguistic continuity with the future discourse between the father and his daughter. Yet the father’s last sentence breaks that continuity and directs the reader onto an unexpected path. Once the hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, the receiver’s brain needs to produce a new cognitive pathway to decipher the new meaning of the joke. The following joke is based on a double meaning: Two Jews walk along the seashore of Tel-Aviv and talk about business. Suddenly one of them says “Hey, look, the sea is rising. The other replies “Beauty, sell.”

If we expected the other person to refer to the sea in the first sense of the word rising––i.e., the sea’s tide––then humor comes when we are taken to the

272

Arie Sover

corridors of the stock market. This kind of humor is based on an ambiguity that Arthur Koestler calls bisociation. That is, two-way thinking that stems from the dual interpretation of a word (Koestler 1964: 27–67). At a certain moment, the joke takes an unexpected direction which creates cognitive dissonance, and it opens up a new and unexpected interpretation. The result of this process is laughter (Sover 2009: 152–155). Reading, like hearing, is an active act of matching the words of the text to the schema that the reader creates based on what they have just read. The reader makes assumptions about what their eye will meet later. When the words they find match the consent they have built, the hypothesis is confirmed, and they can move on. However, man often creates more than one possible schema, so he is open to certain changes later. Ferdinand De Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, calls this an associative relation. When a particular word is reminiscent of similar words in its sound, content, or structure, the thought subconsciously elevates them from their vocabulary. For example, a word like a teacher mentions the words feature, preacher, or pitcher (De Saussure 1978: 170–175). Here is another example of verbal humor in which the brain must complete missing or hidden sentences: In a film by the duo Laurel and Hardy called Twice Two, the title says that: “Hardy was married, Laurel was also unhappy”

The humor in this title is based on the words was also. These are the words that are supposed to balance the two parts of the sentence. The humor changes this expected balance, but, this time, the imbalance between the two parts of the sentence creates covert sentences that are not written: a, Laurel was also married and b, Hardy was unhappy with his marriage. For the title to be humorous, the reader must complete the missing sentences. Another example based on completing missing sentences: A man tells his friend how he got married: “I once asked someone a stupid question and she answered me with a stupid answer, and we have been married ever since.”

The brain acts as a self-organizing neural network. This system classifies the new information it absorbs into patterns that are familiar. If information cannot be embedded into an existing pattern it creates a new pattern. A new

Humor and Creativity

273

idea may make sense retroactively, but it is difficult to anticipate (De Bono 1994: 28–29). Humor is a product of the human’s brain. It does not exist in reality. The examples above have no meaning in normative thinking. Each of them is incomplete because it lacks something and so it cannot fit the cognitive patterns. The brain fills in the gaps through meta-language, which is the language of humor. The brain has many and varied ways to solve “problems” that challenge it. The humorous solution, which the brain chooses to create for itself, contradicts the normative way of thinking. In this way, the mind practices thinking differently and creatively. Literal humor can sometimes stretch the boundaries of irrationality to the extreme, that is, to the absurd, as can be seen in the absurd plays of Ionesco (The Chairs), Beckett, (Waiting for Godot), and Pinter (Birthday Party), or in films by Charlie Chaplin, the Marx Brothers, Monty Python, and Sasha Baron Cohen. To understand the absurd and enjoy its comic aspect, one must accept the internal logic that exists within it that opposes the normative logic of the viewer. Here is an example from a film by the Marx Brothers called Monkey Business (1931): Groucho Marks addresses a crowded hall with a dramatic call to the audience: “Ladies and gentlemen, everyone is quiet! A lady’s diamond earring has been lost. It is exactly like that (points to an earring he holds in his hand). In fact, it is the earring!”

The following is from another Marx Brothers’ film, Animal Crackers (1930): The Minister of Finance presents Prime Minister (Groucho Marx) with the annual report. Minister of Finance: “I hope the report is clear.” Prime Minister: “Clear?! After all, any four-year-old child can understand this report. (He turns to his secretary.) Run bring me a four-yearold child, I cannot find my hands and feet here”.

In all of the above verbal examples, irrationality rules but has a grip on our brain. The ability to follow jokes or absurd sentences and be able to understand their internal logic is the ability of the receiver’s brain to “give up”

274

Arie Sover

his logic and pave a new cognitive path to find a solution to the extraordinary humor of the person who produces it.

The Connection between the Creative Deciphering of Humor and the Human Defense Mechanism Human beings receive information from the outside world through the five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. These senses are our protective shell. Through them, someone can identify dangers that threaten or may harm him. The same five senses are used to create and decipher humorous situations. The question is, what is the connection between the defense mechanism and the mechanism for deciphering and producing humor? Well, the answer to that is the primary thing that preoccupies the human being: survival. To protect itself, part of the brain functions like radar. The brain constantly examines the environment and, if it perceives an extraordinary situation through one or more of the five senses, it will directly or indirectly examine whether it is threatening or dangerous. If the answer is negative, the brain will want to know how the unusual situation was formed. If the brain finds the answer to the question, it will treat the unusual situation as a humorous one. If no answer is found, the unpleasant feeling will accompany the receiver for a certain period of time. Another proof of the connection between humor and the defense mechanism is our quick response to unusual humorous situations. Our response to such humorous situations is an instinctive response. From the moment we perceive an unusual situation to the moment we laugh, almost zero time passes. Let us not forget that the same zero time serves the defense mechanism first of all, and only when the unusual is not identified as dangerous or threatening and its formation is understood will it be deciphered as humorous. As for the question of why the response of laughter follows the process of deciphering humor, the answer is that, in every absorption of an unusual situation, the brain becomes tense. If it turns out that the unusual is not threatening or dangerous and its formation is understandable, which means that it is perceived as a humorous situation, the tension created at the beginning of the process is discharged at the end of the process through laughter (Sover 2009: 88–91). See how this is reflected in the following chart:

Humor and Creativity

275

Figure 6. Flow chart of absorption and decipherment of an unusual condition (Based on Sover 2009: 91).

For clarification, let us take a situation that can occur in reality: a person is waiting at a bus stop and watching another man with a briefcase walking on the opposite sidewalk reading a newspaper. Without noticing, that man slips on a banana peel and falls. The person at the bus stop laughs. He deciphered this unusual situation as a humorous one. A third person arrives at the bus station and sees a man lying on the sidewalk and another person laughing. He asks the laughing person “Why are you laughing at a man lying on the sidewalk? What’s funny here?” The laughing person tells him what he saw, that is, how the unusual process took place. “He went and read a newspaper,

276

Arie Sover

slipped on a banana peel and fell.” At that moment the third person also starts laughing. He now has answers to both his questions: a, the unusual situation is not threatening or dangerous and, b, he understands why the man is lying on the sidewalk. At that moment, he also perceives the unusual situation as humorous. I would like to point out that not everyone will laugh at such situations. As mentioned, humor is a personal matter, and everyone can interpret it differently.

Verbal Humor Challenges the Mind Verbal humor challenges the mind cognitively and/or intellectually. The brain will always look for answers to the questions it encounters, whether this is in concrete situations that occur or in ideas that challenge it, such as proverbs, wordplays, or jokes. If we do not understand a joke, we feel uncomfortable, especially when everyone is laughing at it and we are not. The cognitive processes that the brain produces to decipher unusual humorous situations are the same creative processes that the brain uses to produce humorous situations. We still do not know exactly what parts of the brain perform these actions and why some people’s brains produce much more humorous creative situations than that of others.

Conclusion In this study we examined the relationship between humor and creativity. We learned that there is a close connection between humor, creativity, and intelligence in both the acts of deciphering and producing humor. Humor has many facets and therefore the decoding levels required to understand humor vary depending on the type of humor. We have learned that, in order to decipher and produce humor, the brain uses divergent and converging thinking according to the type of humor. Creative people tend to challenge conventions. A creative person will collect and organize information while breaking conventions and will discover new and complex relationships between data. We have learned that a sense of humor is the enigma by which a person produces and deciphers humor. Humans have different levels in terms of their sense of humor and, accordingly, a different approach to humorous situations. There are humorous situations where the level of creativity required to

Humor and Creativity

277

decipher or create it varies from case to case and from person to person. We have distinguished between visual humor and verbal humor. Humor is a creative meta-language that man has invented to communicate indirectly with other human beings: a language that has not been learned anywhere and yet almost everyone understands it. A language that is a product of human beings, created by the collective mind of human society. In response to the question of why this meta-language is needed, we received answers from many studies whose results showed unequivocally that, when the brain speaks with humor or decodes humor, it operates in creative, unconventional pathways which connect parts of the brain that do not communicate in the same way in the normative language. The obvious conclusion from this is that the mind seeks to break through its own boundaries through the meta-language called humor. The question of why the brain does this has partial answers but more hypotheses. One of them is that the brain develops, improves itself, and becomes smarter through humorous thinking. Despite the many studies that have been done to understand the brain’s processes when deciphering and producing humor, the knowledge is still raw and has not been able to contribute to the invention of a humor production technique or humor therapy for those whose sense of humor is poor. Humor is a product of the mind. In reality, there is no humor, and there are only unusual situations. There are two types of unusual situations: one can be dangerous, threatening, unpleasant, painful, and disturbing, and the other can be the opposite, humorous, whose rewards are laughter and pleasure. Our brain decides whether to classify the unusual as a state of humor or not. I will end with an example of such a decision that happened to me in Paris many years ago when I was writing my doctoral thesis on humor. It was a cold winter day in December. The snow that fell turned black water on the roads. I wanted to cross a small street towards the Sorbonne University. The traffic light was red for pedestrians. Two groups of people were each waiting on the other side of the street for the traffic light to turn green. But the green light appeared, and no one crossed the road. After a few moments of no one moving, I squeezed between the people and went down the road. At that moment, I fell into a pit with black water that reached above my knees. The people on both sides of the road burst out laughing. They were waiting for a victim, and that was me. What did I do? I burst out laughing. My reaction to their laughing was not to get angry or upset, as most people would, and this was my brain’s choice to see this unusual situation as a humorous one. As it is well known, anger harms health, while laughter contributes to health. My mind chose the

278

Arie Sover

positive side: the side of humor. To choose the positive side, the brain needs to put in a cognitive-creative effort to decipher the unusual as a humorous situation. The intellectual and cognitive effort that needs to be invested to decipher or produce humor is rewarding both physically and mentally. The immediate result of such an effort is laughter accompanied by pleasure.

References Alexander, P. Christensenm, Paul J. Silvia, Emily C. Nusbaum, and Roger, E. Beaty. 2018. “Clever People: Intelligence and Humor Production Ability.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts Vol. 12(2) 136–143. Attardo, S., and Raskin, V. 1991. “Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 4, 293–347. Attardo, S. (2003). (Editorial) The Pragmatics of Humor. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1287– 1294. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., and Nijstad, B. A. 2008. “A meta-analysis of 25 Years of mood-creativity research: hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?” Psychol. Bull 134 (6), 779–806. Baron, R. A., and Byrne, D. 2000. Social psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bergson, Henri. 1975. Le Rire. Paris: Puf. Boot, N., Baas, M., van Gaal, S., Cools, R., and De Dreu, C. K. 2017. “Creative cognition and dopaminergic modulation of fronto-striatal networks: Integrative review and research agenda.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 78, 13–23. Chakravarty, A. 2010. “The creative brain–Revisiting concepts.” Medical hypotheses 74(3), 606–612. Chen, C. H., Chen, H. C., Roberts, A. M. 2019. “Creativity from theoretical explanations to an empirical humor training program: effective ‘ha-ha’ helps people to ‘a-ha’. In Creativity and Humor. Edited by S. R. Luria, J. Baer, and J. C., Kaufman, 83–108. London, UK: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813802-1.00004-1 Christensen, P. Alexander, Silvia, J. Paul, Nusbaum, C. Emily, and Beaty, E. Roger. . 2018. “Clever People: Intelligence and Humor Production Ability.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts Vol. 12, No. 2, 136–143. Coates, E., and Coates, A. 2020) “My Nose Is Running Like a Pound of Butter Exploring Young Children’s Humour.” Early Child Development and Care 190(13), 2119–2133. Craft, Anna. 2002. Creativity and early years education. A life-wide foundation. London: Continuum. Craft, Anna, McConnonb, Linda and Matthews Alice. 2012. “Child-initiated play and professional creativity: Enabling four-year-olds’ possibility thinking.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 7, 48–61. Cropley, A. 2006. “In Praise of Convergent Thinking.” Creativity Research Journal 18(3), 391–404.

Humor and Creativity

279

De Bono, E. 1994. Teach Your Child to Think [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Branko Weiss Institute. De Saussure, Ferdinand. 1978. Cours de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Payot. Douglas, H. E., Bore, M., and Munro, D. 2016. “Openness and intellect: An analysis of the motivational constructs underlying two aspects of personality.” Personality and Individual Differences 99, 242–253. http://dx .doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.030. Eisenberg, J., and Thompson, W. 2011. “The Effects of Competition on Improvisers’ Motivation, Stress, and Creative Performance.” Creativity Research Journal 23(2), 129-136. Gernsbacher, M. A., and Robertson, R. R. W. 1995. “Reading skill and suppression revisited.” Psychological Science 6, 165–169. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9280.1995. tb00326.x. Greengross, G., and Miller, G. F. 2011. “Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males.” Intelligence 39, 188–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006. Greengross, G., Martin, R. A., and Miller, G. F. 2012. “Personality traits, intelligence, humor styles, and humor production ability of professional stand-up comedians compared to college students.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 6, 74–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0025774. Guilford, J. P. 1959. Personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hammershøj, L. G. 2021. “Creativity in children as play and humour: Indicators of affective processes of creativity.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 39. doi: 10.1016/ j.tsc.2020.100784. Hassin‐Baer, S., and Inzelberg, R. 2014. “Enhanced creative thinking under dopaminergic therapy in Parkinson disease.” Annals of neurology 75(6), 935–942. Heerey, E. A., and Kring, A. M. 2007. Interpersonal consequences of social anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116(1), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021843X.116.1.125 Herzog, T. R. 1999. “Gender differences in humor appreciation revisited.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 12, 411–423. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1515/humr.1999.12.4.411. Hofmann, G. Stefan, and DiBartolo, M. Patricia. 2014. Social Anxiety: Clinical, Developmental, and Social Perspectives Vol. 3rd ed. Academic Press. Hofmann, G. Stefan, and DiBartolo, M. Patricia. 2018. “Clever People: Intelligence and Humor Production Ability.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts Vol. 12, No. 2, 136–143. Howrigan, D. P., and MacDonald, K. B. 2008. “Humor as a mental fitness indicator.” Evolutionary Psychology 6, 625–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 147470490800600411. Huizinga, J. 1938. Homo ludens. A study of play element in culture. Boston: The Beacon Press. Humke, C., and Schaefer, C. E. 1996. “Sense of humor and creativity.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 82, 544 –546. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/ pms.1996.82.2.544

280

Arie Sover

Kellner, Raphaela, and Benedek, Mathias. 2017. “The role of creative potential and intelligence for humor production.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 52–58. https://doi-org.elib.openu.ac.il/10.1037/aca0000065. Kaufman, J. C., and Beghetto, R. A. 2009. “Beyond big and little: The four-c model of creativity.” Review of General Psychology 13, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0013688. Koestler, Arthur. 1964 The Act of Creation. New York, Dell. Kozbelt, A., and Nishioka, K. 2010. “Humor comprehension, humor production, and insight: An exploratory study.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 23, 375–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/humr .2010.017. Kreitler, Shulamith. 2018. “The meaning Profile of Humor.” In Laughter: Anthology of Multidisciplinary Articles in Humor Research [in Hebrew]. Edited by Arie Sover, 91– 122. Jerusalem: Carmel. Lewis, C., and Lovatt, P. J. 2013. “Breaking away from set patterns of thinking: Improvisation and divergent thinking.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 9, 46–58. Long, D. L., and Graesser, A. C. 1988. “Wit and humor in discourse processing. Discourse Processes 11, 35–60. doi:10.1080/ 01638538809544690. Martin, A. Rod. 2003. “Sens of Humor.” In Positive Psychological Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures. Edited by S. J. Lopez and C. R. Snyder, 313–326. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Martin, A. Rod. 2007. The psychology of humor. Oxford: Elsevier Inc. McGhee, E. Paul. 1979. Humour: Its Origin and Development. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Menninghaus, W., Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., and Jacobs, A. M. 2014. “Sounds Funny? Humor Effects of Phonological and Prosodic Figures of Speech.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8(1), 71–76. https://doiorg.elib.openu.ac.il/10.1037/a0035309. Nusbaum, E. C., Silvia, P. J., and Beaty, R. E. 2017. “Ha ha? Assessing individual differences in humor production ability.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 11, 231–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000086. O’Connell, W. E. 1960. “The adaptive functions of wit and humor.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61, 263–270. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/h0047766. O’Quin, K., and Derks, P. 2011. “Humor and creativity.” In Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed). Edited by M. A. Runco and S. R. Pritzker, 628–635. London, UK: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 375038-9.00116-3. Perchtold-Stefan, C. M., Papousek, I., Rominger, C., Schertler, M., Weiss, E. M., and Fink, A. 2020. “Humor comprehension and creative cognition: Shared and distinct neurocognitive mechanisms as indicated by EEG alpha activity.” NeuroImage 213. https://doi-org.elib.openu.ac.il/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116695. Reddy, V., Williams E., and Vaughan, A. 2002. “Sharing humor and laughter in autism and Down’s syndrome.” Br. J. Psychology 93, 219–242. Rouff, L. L. 1975. “Creativity and sense of humor.” Psychological Reports 37, 1022. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1975.37.3.1022.

Humor and Creativity

281

Ruch, W. 2007. “Sense of humor: A new look at an old concept.” In The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic. Edited by W. Ruch, 3–14. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Ruch, W., Attardo, S., and Raskin, V. 1993. “Towards an empirical verification of the general theory of verbal Humor.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 6. 123–136. doi:10.1515/humr.1993.6.2.123. Ruch, W., and Heintz, S. 2019. “Humor production and creativity: overview and recommendations.” In Creativity and Humor. Edited by S.R., Luria, J. Baer, and J.C. Kaufman, 1–42. London, UK: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12813802-1.00001-6. Runco, M. A., and Jaeger, G. J. 2012. “The standard definition of creativity.” Creative. Res. Journal 24 (1), 92–96. Schmajuk, N., Aziz, D. R., and Bates, M. B. 2009. “Attentional-Associative Interactions in Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 21(1), 92–103. Sover, Arie. 2009. Humor: The Pathway to Human Laughter [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Carmel. Sover, Arie. 2011. “The Language of Verbal Humor.” Humor Mekuvan Journal [in Hebrew]. Issue 1: 25–15. Sover, Arie. 2018. The Languages of Humor: Verbal, Visual, and Physical Humor. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Sover, Arie. 2021. Jewish Humor: An Outcome of Historical Experience, Survival and Wisdom. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Sutu, A., Phetmisy, C. N., and Damian, R. I. 2020. “Open to Laugh: The Role of Openness to Experience in Humor Production Ability.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 15(3), 401–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000298. Takeuchi, H. et al. 2020. “Convergent creative thinking performance is associated with white matter structures: Evidence from a large sample study.” NeuroImage 210, 116577. Thorson, J. A., and Powell, F. C. 1993. “Development and validation of a multidimensional sense of humor scale.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 49, 13–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199301)49:113: AID-JCLP22704901033.0.CO; 2-S. Twidale, H. 1986. “Nowadays, being “old sourpuss” is no joke.” Working Woman 18, 2-6. Weitao Zhang, Zsuzsika Sjoerds, and Bernhard Hommel. 2020. “Metacontrol of human creativity: The neurocognitive mechanisms of convergent and divergent thinking,” NeuroImage Volume 210, 116572. Wu, Ching-Lin, and Chen, Hsueh-Chih. 2019. The Influence of Creativity on IncongruityResolution and Nonsense Humor Comprehension.” Creativity Research Journal 31(1), 110–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1577675. Wyer, R. S., Jr., and Collins, J. E. II. 1992. “A theory of humor elicitation.” Psychological Review 99, 663–688. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.663. Zabelina, D. L., Colzato, L., Beeman, M., and Hommel, B. 2016. “Dopamine and the Creative Mind: Individual Differences in Creativity Are Predicted by Interactions

282

Arie Sover

between Dopamine Genes DAT and COMT.” PloS One 11(1) 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146768. Zhang, W., Sjoerds, Z., and Hommel, B. 2020. “Metacontrol of human creativity: The neurocognitive mechanisms of convergent and divergent thinking.” NeuroImage 210, 116572.

Chapter 13

Creativity and Meaning Shulamith Kreitler* School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Abstract The chaper deals with the relations betweeen creativity and meaning. The major thesis supported by empirical studies is that creativity depends on different kinds of applications of meaning. In line with the Kreitler Meaning System which describes meaning in terms of cognitive contents and processes, the chapter focuses on the motivational and operational aspects of creativity. The motivational approach is based on the cogitive orientation theory, and the operational approach is based on applying the meaning system. The first part deals with the motivation of individuals involved in creativity in general and of artists specifically, and with the cognitive processes characterizing the creative act. The second part deals with the motivation of the spectator of art and the processes involved in the elaborations and experiencing of art, which are creativity-related. The last part focuses on the similarities between the creativity of the artist and of the spectator and presents the thesis that art provides the opportunity and stimulation for practicing and experimenting with meaning-making.

Keywords: motivation, cognitive orientation, meaning, artist, art, art spectator, meaning-making

*

Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected].

In: New Horizons in Creativity Editor: Shulamith Kreitler ISBN: 978-1-68507-751-8 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

284

Shulamith Kreitler

Introduction Exploring the Interrelations of Creativity and Meaning The Rational for Exploring the Interrelations of Creativity and Meaning Creativity is a characteristic of specific outputs, a property of the process involved in the production of creative outputs, as well as a characteristic of individuals involved in producing creative outputs, and possibly even of the individuals responding or evaluating at least some kinds of creative outputs (e.g., in the arts). Meaning is a set of contents and processes involved in any process, action and output of individuals. Hence, the relations between creativity and meaning seem to be hard to overlook. Notably, both creativity and meaning are constructs that have been there as active factors and as themes of investigation for centuries, both have been undergoing a remarkable revival of interest in the present time, and both are in the phase of being reevaluated for importance and contribution. The present chapter is devoted to examining the relations of creativity and meaning in an attempt to clarify their role and contributions to the further development of creativity in the interests of promoting the flourishing of society. Creativity and meaning share a major characteristic which is that they are active all over in a great many domains and activities, in everyday life, technology and academia. Hence, exploring their interrelations requires selecting a specific domain. In the present case we chose art as the major domain, because it provides the possibilities of examining the interrelations of creativity and meaning in regard to the creator and the spectator of the creative object. Defining Creativity Both creativity and meaning require definitions. However, the task seems at first glance easier in regard to creativity which has already a fairly acceptable definition. There are three basic approaches to defining creativity. One is based on the characteristics of the creative product, another – on those of the creative process, and a third on the responses evoked by the creative product. The creative product is the major construct which is also central in all three approaches. The familiar and conventional definition of the creative product focuses on the features of innovation and usefulness (Runco and Jaeger, 2012; Runco and Kim, 2018). Innovation is usually assessed in terms of originality, whereas usefulness is more controversial. Since usefulness does not always

Creativity and Meaning

285

apply in the concrete and direct manner, it may be difficult to assess and is often replaced by the descriptive terms of relevance or importance. However, relevance in regard to a creative product merges actually with meaningfulness of the product, for something, or someone or in some context. Notably, studies showed that even if usefulness is maintained as a characteristic of the product, it is still necessary and adequate to use also meaning as the characteristic of the creative product (Sääksjärvi and Gonçalves, 2018).

Defining Meaning The definition of meaning used in the present chapter represents many of the existing definitions and is based on a large body of studies demonstrating and exploring the role of meaning in various different domains, including personality, cognition, emotions, and behavior (Kreitler, 2014a, 2022a, 2022b). The core of the definition is the meaning unit which consists of a referent, which is the carrier of meaning, and some content assigned to it as the expression of the meaning. The following are three examples of meaning units. Life – an adventure, City – New York, Cupboard - piece of furniture. An empirically-based set of variables is used for characterizing meaning units in terms of the following five aspects: (a) Meaning Dimensions, which characterize the contents of the assigned meaning in terms of the specific information communicated about the referent, such as the referent’s Sensory Qualities (e.g., Ocean – blue), Function – (e.g., Broom – sweep), Feelings and Emotions (e.g., Mother –loves her child), Range of Inclusion (e.g., Body - the head, arms, and torso) (see Figure 1); (b) Types of Relation, which characterize the immediacy of the relation between the referent and the contents of the assigned meaning, for example, attributive (e.g., Summer - warm), comparative (e.g., Spring – cooler than summer), exemplifying instance (e.g., A doll -Barbie.); (c) Forms of Relation, which characterize the formal regulation of the relation between the referent and the assigned meaning, in terms of its validity (positive or negative; e.g., Geography- is not a religion), quantification (absolute, partial; e.g., Lesson - sometimes boring), and status (factual, desired or desirable; Law - should be obeyed, Happiness - I wish I had more); (d) Referent Shifts, which characterize the relation between the referent and the original input or the previous referent (e.g., when the input was Day, a response referring to Night presents a shift to the opposite, and a response referring to Morning refers to a part of the referent); (e) Forms of Expression, which characterize the forms of expression of the meaning units in terms of their kind (e.g., verbal, denotation, graphic) and directness (e.g., actual gesture or verbal description of gesture) (Kreitler and Kreitler, 1990a).

286

Shulamith Kreitler

Table 1. Major variables of the Kreitler Meaning System: the meaning variables MEANING DIMENSIONS Dim. 1 Contextual Allocation Dim. 2 Dim. 3 Dim. 4

Range of Inclusion (2a: Subclasses; 2b: Parts) Function, Purpose and Role

Dim. 6

Actions and Potentialities for Actions (4a: by referent; 4b: to referent) Manner of Occurrence and Operation Antecedents and Causes

Dim. 7

Consequences and Results

Dim. 8

Domain of Application (8a: as subject; 8b: as object) Material Structure State and Possible changes in it Weight and Mass Size and Dimensionality Quantity and Mass Locational Qualities Temporal Qualities Possessions (17a) and Belongingness (17b) Development Sensory Qualitiesc (19a: of referent; 19b: by referent) Feelings and Emotions (20a: evoked by referent; 20b: felt by referent) Judgments and Evaluations (21a: about referent; 21b: by referent)

Dim. 5

Dim. 9 Dim. 10 Dim. 11 Dim. 12 Dim. 13 Dim. 14 Dim. 15 Dim. 16 Dim. 17 Dim. 18 Dim. 19 Dim. 20

Dim. 21

Dim. 22

Cognitive Qualities (22a: evoked by referent; 22b: of referent)

FORMS OF RELATION FR 1 Propositional (1a: Positive; 1b: Negative) FR 2 Partial relation (2a: Positive; 2b: Negative) FR 3 Universal (3a: Positive; 3b: Negative) FR 4 Conjunctive (4a: Positive; 4b: Negative) FR 5

Disjunctive (5a: Positive; 5b: Negative) FR 6 Normative (6a: Positive; 6b: Negative) FR 7 Questioning (7a: Positive; 7b: Negative) FR 8 Desired, wished (8a: Positive; 8b: Negative) SHIFTS IN REFERENTb SR 1 Identical SR 2 Opposite SR 3 Partial SR 4 Modified by addition SR 5 Previous meaning value SR 6 Association SR 7 Unrelated SR 8 Verbal label SR 9 Grammatical variation SR1 10 Previous meaning values combined SR 11

Superordinate

SR 12

Synonym (12a: in original language; 12b: translated in another language; 12c: label in another medium; 12d a different formulation for the same referent on the same level) Replacement by implicit meaning value

SR13

Creativity and Meaning TYPES OF RELATIONa TR 1 Attributive (1a: Qualities to substance; 1b: Actions to agent) TR 2

TR 3

TR 4

Comparative (2a: Similarity; 2b: Difference; 2c: Complementariness; 2d: Relationality) Exemplifying-Illustrative (3a: Exemplifying instance; 3b: Exemplifying situation; 3c: Exemplifying scene) Metaphoric-Symbolic (4a: Interpretation; 4b: Conventional metaphor; 4c. Original metaphor 4d: Symbol)

287

FORMS OF EXPRESSION FE 1 Verbal (1a: Actual enactment; 1b: Verbally described; 1c: Using available materials) FE 2 Graphic (2a: Actual enactment; 2b: Verbally described; 2c: Using available materials)

FE 3

Motoric (3a: Actual enactment; 3b: Verbally described; 3c: Using available materials)

FE4

Sounds and Tones (4a: Actual enactment; 4b: Verbally described; 4c: Using available materials)

FE 5

Sensory (5a: Actual enactment; 5b: Verbally described; 5c: Using available materials) Denotative (6a: Actual enactment; 6b: Verbally described; 6c: Using available materials) Visual media (7a: Actual production; 7b Verbally described; 7c: Using available materials)

FE6

FE 7

a

Modes of meaning: Lexical mode: TR1+TR2; Personal mode: TR3+TR4. Close SR: 1+3+9+12 Medium SR: 2+4+5+6+10 Distant SR: 7+8+11+13. c This meaning dimension includes a listing of subcategories of the different senses/sensations: [for special purposes they may also be grouped into “external sensations” and “internal sensations”] e.g., color, form, taste, sound, smell, pain, humidity and various internal sensations. Copyright ©Shulamith Kreitler, Tel-Aviv University. b

All the variables of the five described sets constitute the meaning system. In expressing or communicating any kind of meaning some selection of the variables of the meaning system is used. Th coding of the responses is done in terms of the variables of each of the five set. A summary of the frequencies of the used variables (counted as proportions out of the total number of units of response) is considered as the meaning profile of the specific communication, for example of an art object. When the responses are averaged across different subjects, then the summary can be considered as representing the meaning profile of the meaning assignment by these individuals (coding the meaning communications may be made by means of the website Kreitlermeaningsystem).

288

Shulamith Kreitler Ra n Ap ge o Po s p li f cat Be sessio ion lon n s gin gne & Co g ss Qu nitive alit ies Judgm e Evalu nts & ations

Contextual Allocation

ty

Qu

ti an

nt me lop e v De es & Caus edents c e t An lts & Resu uences eq s Con Function

State

Action Feelings & Emotions

l pora Tem ties i l a Qu

ze

Si

Sen l sor rna yQ Inte ual c i t e itie h t s aes ll n i e K m S e t r s o y ual Ta dit s u A Vi

Manner of Occurren ce Ra nge In c lu s o f ion Str uct u Ma re ter ial Lo Wei gh Qu cat t ali ion tie al s

Figure 1. Circumplex model of the meaning dimensions of the Kreitler Meaning System.

The Role of Meaning in Regard to Creativity The above paragraphs showed that meaning may be a characteristic applied in defining the creative product. This conclusion is at best a prelude for initiating the exploration of meaning in the domain of creativity. Even in regard to defining creativity, considering meaning as one characteristic of creativity as defined conventionally and objectively, does not exhaust the role of meaning in regard defining the creative product subjectively by individuals experiencing it (see below “The general meaning profile of art”). Meaning fulfills a basic and varied role in regard to creativity. The role refers to the two major constituents of the situation: The creator of the creative product, and the spectator who reacts to the creative product. In regard to each of these two components there are two important aspects: the motivational one and the operational one. The motivational aspect focuses on ‘Why is that specific behavior enacted?’ or ‘What are the reasons that underlie the specific action?’ whereas the operational aspect focuses on ‘How?’ or ‘In which manner will the action be performed?’ ‘By which method will that behavior be implemented?’ In regard to the creator, the motivational question is what drives the creator of the creative product, e.g., the artist to create the creative product? Similarly, in regard to the spectator, the motivational question is,

Creativity and Meaning

289

what makes the spectator of art care about exposing himself/herself to the creative product, respond to it, or experience it? The operational aspect is concerned with the manner of production. In regard to the creator of the creative product the question is ‘How does the creator of the creative product create it? or ‘Which processes are involved in producing the creative product?’ In regard to the spectator of the creative product, the operational question is ‘In which manner does the spectator’s response occur?’ or ‘Which processes are involved in the spectator’s response?’ or ‘Which processes determine that action, shape it, or make it possible?’ It is evident that the motivational and the operational questions are different in regard to the nature of the evoked behaviors and the processes involved in the actions themselves. The responses to both the motivational and the operational questions are grounded in meaning but they are different.

The Motivational Aspect The motivational question is dealt with in terms of the cognitive orientation (CO) theory which assumes that behavior is a function of underlying motivation defined by meanings (Kreitler, 2004b, 2014b). It considers meaning units as beliefs which may be orienting in specific directions. For example, Heat – may cause fatigue, Highway- provides fast communication, Trees – are beautiful. Each of the mentioned meaning units may or may not be used as orienting towards or away from a certain act of behavior in a specific context. For example, if one is looking for a fast way to get somewhere, the meaning unit about the highway may be relevant in regard to the choice of the way, while the meaning unit about the trees may be relevant if one were looking for a nice shady place to sit. When the issue refers to the reasons for enacting a certain behavior, the answer is based on relevant beliefs of the four following types: a) Beliefs about goals, which refer to actions or states desired or undesired by the individual (e.g., ‘I want to be respected by others’); b) Beliefs about rules and norms, which refer to social, ethical, aesthetic and other rules and standards (e.g., ‘One should be assertive’); c) Beliefs about oneself, which express information about the self, such as one’s traits, behaviors, habits, actions or feelings (e.g., ‘I often get angry’) and d) General beliefs, which express information about reality, others and the environment (e.g., ‘The world is a dangerous place’). The beliefs do not refer to the obvious and explicit surface meanings of the behavior or to its veridical value but to deeper underlying meanings of that behavior. The underlying meanings are explored by a systematic standard

290

Shulamith Kreitler

three-step guided interview procedure with pretest subjects. The meanings that recur in the pretest subjects manifesting the behavior and do not appear in those without the behavior are selected as themes for the CO questionnaire. All the themes appear in the questionnaire in the form of the four belief types. Thus, the beliefs in the questionnaire refer only to the underlying meanings of the behavior but not to the behavior itself which is not mentioned explicitly. In regard to each belief in the CO questionnaire the subjects are requested to check on a 4-step Likert scale the degree to which they consider it as true or not. Summing up the responses in each of the four types of beliefs reflects the degree of support of the subjects for the indicated behavior. If the majority of beliefs in at least three belief types support the action, a unified tendency is generated which represents the motivational disposition orienting toward the performance of the action (see Figure 1). Thus, the CO questionnaire provides both a prediction of the specific behavior and insight into its meaning-based support, i.e., the wishes, emotions, expectations of the person involved in the creating or experiencing of the creative product. The motivational disposition defined in the described manner provides information that enables predicting the actual behavior. However, it is not conscious and is not under the individual’s voluntary control (Kreitler, 2004b, 2014b, Kreitler and Kreitler, 1982). Beli

efs a

bou

t Se lf

Beliefs about Norms s oal ut G o b a iefs fs Bel lie e B al er n Ge

Motivational Disposition

Figure 2. The vector which defines the motivational disposition in the cognitive orientation theory.

The structure of the motivational response for creating and for experiencing the creative product are the same, which means that in both cases there is a motivational disposition that is defined by four types of beliefs. But the content of the beliefs, their specific meanings, are not the same in the case for creating and for experiencing the creative product.

Creativity and Meaning

291

The Operational Aspect The operational aspect deals with the manner of performance of the action, which may be creating the creative product or experiencing it. The focus is on the processes involved in the implementation of the behavior. Essentially the operational aspect depends on the existence of the motivational disposition without whose occurrence there is no basis for activating the operational aspect. Yet, the operational aspect is independent of the motivational one which does not determine the contents and manner of functioning enabling the actual performance. The motivational disposition can be implemented by any one of a whole set of operational schemes. The operational schemes in general depend on the kind of action. If for example the action requires moving objects, then muscular involvement is likely to be engaged. In regard to creating the creative product and in regard to experiencing it, the operational schemes consist basically of meaning profiles. The reason is that both behaviors – of creating and of experiencing – are essentially cognitive kinds of behavior and as such are dependent on the activation and involvement of meaning variables, as defined in the meaning system (Kreitler, 2014a). The meaning profiles consist of meaning variables identified as relevant for the task at hand. The identification is based on comparing the personal meaning profiles of individuals who perform well the task at hand with those of individuals who perform it less well. The meaning variables that differentiate significantly between the two compared profiles are identified as constituting the meaning profile underlying the task at hand (Kreitler, 2014a, 2021). Again, it needs to be emphasized, that as in regard to the motivational aspect, the structure of the response to the operational question is similar in regard to creating and experiencing the creative product. In both cases it consists of a meaning profile. But the specific contents of the structure, i.e., the meaning variables that constitute the meaning profile may differ. Motivational Disposition, Meaning Profile and Creativity Creating a creative product requires both the motivational disposition and the adequate meaning profile to implement it. When only one of these constituents is available there may be difficulties in regard to creating the product. Similarly, experiencing a creative product requires both the motivational disposition and the adequate meaning profile to implement it. When one of these required components is missing, there may be some tendency or inclination towards experiencing but it may not be fully realized.

292

Shulamith Kreitler

Creating the Creative Product: Creativity and Creating Art Motivation for Creativity The Motivation for Creativity in Terms of the Cognitive Orientation Approach: Two Factors for Creativity and Three for Artistic Creativity The motivational disposition for creativity consists of four types of beliefs which refer to themes representing the underlying meanings of the behavior in question. The unique characteristics of the motivation for creativity disposition consist in the themes that constitute the motivational disposition. The first groups of individuals engaged in creating creative products that we studied were architects and engineers. The studies showed that the cognitive orientation of the motivation for creativity as assessed in these individuals is defined by 11 major themes that form two factors after being factor analyzed. One factor represents the focus on the self, defined by the following themes: developing the self, investing in it, learning about it, promoting its uniqueness, enabling its free expression, as well as striving for perfection, persevering despite difficulties or even failures, readiness to invest and make efforts, and not choosing the easy way out for oneself. The other factor is focused on contributing to others, which is defined by the following themes: doing things that may enhance the welfare of human beings, caring for the welfare of human beings in general, cooperating with others, and learning about situations and needs that concern other people. Notably, the themes loaded on the second factor show that the focus is on contributing to others in general, on a large scale, rather than to family, friends and acquaintances. Studies showed that individuals identified as more creative scored higher on the cognitive orientation of creativity than the less creative, and did not always differ from creative individuals in other domains, such as teaching, sports or management (Casakin and Kreitler, 2005a, b, 2007, 2008a, b, 2010, 2015, 2017; Kreitler, 2020; Kreitler and Casakin, 2009a, b, 2012, 2019a; Kreitler and Kreitler, 1992). Further explorations of the motivation for creativity focused on artists involved actively in the production of art, i.e., musicians, painters, and sculptors. Interviewing artists according to the standard procedure for examining the underlying meanings of motivation for art, resulted in the following additional set of themes: striving for truth without compromising about anything less than truth, striving for aesthetic beauty, truth represents what is right and correct, truth is beautiful in the deep sense of the word, and

Creativity and Meaning

293

improving the existing reality especially in regard to its potentialities for supporting wellbeing and survival. Submitting the data referring to the former and the additional themes to a factor analysis yielded three independent factors. These were labelled focusing on oneself, focusing on truth and beauty, and contributing to others. Comparing the scores in different samples showed that creative individuals in different domains scored higher in all three factors than those not engaged in creativity. Creative artists differed from other creative individuals in their higher scores on the factor of truth and beauty. Creative individuals in domains other than art scored lower than artists on the factor of truth and beauty (Kreitler, 2022b, Chapter 8).

The Meaning Profile for Creativity In order to get a hold over the rich variety of manifestations of creativity, the meaning profile of creativity was explored in studies with creative individuals of different kinds. In one set of studies the participants were individuals of various professions (e.g., scientists, managers, computer experts, technicians and teachers). Some were engaged in producing creative products and were defined as creative in accordance with different criteria (e.g., evaluation by experts, by mentors, or standard creativity tests), while others who participated as control subjects worked in the same professions in different occupations that were not considered creative. In each group there were 15-20 creative subjects, and 15 control subjects. All the subjects were requested to complete the Meaning Test which includes 11 standard stimuli whose meaning is to be communicated. The responses were analyzed in terms of the meaning system which resulted in assigning to each subject a meaning profile. The meaning profiles of the creative and control subjects in each profession were compared. The meaning profile of creativity includes the meaning variables whose frequency differed significantly in the creative and control groups in each of the studied professions. The creativity profile includes the following meaning dimensions: manner of occurrence and operation, state, structure, location, development, cognitive qualities, feelings and emotions; the following types of relation: the comparative: similarity, complementariness, and relationality; the exemplifying-illustrative: situation and scene; the metaphoric-symbolic: metaphors; the following forms of relation: partial, negative, conjunctive, disjunctive, questioning; the following shifts of referent: medium (i.e., referent modified by additions, shift to previous meaning value, several previous referents combined) and particularly distant shifts (i.e., superordinate

294

Shulamith Kreitler

category, associations, replacement by an implicit referent, unrelated referent); the following forms of expression: nonverbal (motional, figural) in addition to the common verbal forms (Casakin and Kreitler, 2005b, 2006, 2011a, 2011c; Kreitler, 2009a, 2017, 2019a, 2019b, 2020, 2020; Kreitler, 1981; Kreitler and Kreitler, 1982, 1988). The described profile of creativity includes 27 meaning variables from all five sets. The variables represent a variety of processes complementing each other in their contributions to creativity. The meaning dimensions include variables focused, on the one hand, on external reality, such as the manner of occurrence and operation, structure, state and location of constructs or objects, and on the other hand, on variables such as feelings and emotions and cognitive qualities representing the more experiential aspects of internal reality. Of special interest are the types of relation that represent the interpersonally-shared mode of meaning represented by the comparative types of relation (comparative: similarity, complementariness, and relationality), and the personal-subjective mode based on the exemplifying-illustrative and metaphoric-symbolic types of meaning. These types of relation also exhibit a binary approach mediating the external and public side by side with the personal and subjective. A special role is played by the forms of relation that exemplify a grasp of ambiguities, contradictions and the doubting-questioning approach which leaves space for the improbable and inconclusive (i.e., the partial and negative forms of relation) as well as for integration (i.e., conjunction). Finally, the diversity of applied shifts of referent supports both the medium shifts which stay relatively close to familiar reality as well as the shifts to the distant referents, which support their preference and ability to move away from the obvious and consider the far-fetched and unlikely.

The Meaning Profile of Artists: Description and Components Another set of studies was devoted to examining the meaning profile of artists. The standard Meaning Test was administered to 48 artists from different countries (Western Europe, US, Russia, South America, Israel(, in the age range of 25 to 83, and engaged actively in creating in different domains of art (e.g., dance, music, painting, literature, acting). The meaning profile of artists was based on the meaning variables which appeared in the meaning profiles of at least 30% of the respondents (Kreitler, 1981, 1985, 2004a; Kreitler and Kreitler, 1990b; Kreitler and Kreitler, 1980; Margaliot, 2005).

Creativity and Meaning

295

The general meaning profile of artists included 32 meaning variables (those in italics appeared also in “The meaning profile of creativity” described above). The profile of artists included the following meaning dimensions: manner of occurrence and operation, structure, state, development, feelings and emotions, and cognitive qualities, and in addition contextual allocation, judgements and evaluations, results, consequences, sensory qualities and function (the latter, related negatively). In regard to types of relation, the most salient findings are the comparative - similarity, and relational, the exemplifying-illustrative – situations and scenes, and the metaphoricsymbolic: metaphors and symbols. Concerning forms of relation, the notable findings are those that concern the partial, negative, conjunction, disjunction, questioning, normative and desired relations. Concerning shifts of referent, there are shifts to close referents (i.e., opposite and partial referents), but mostly towards referents at a medium distance (i.e., referent modified by additions, shift to previous meaning value, several previous referents combined) and particularly distant shifts (i.e., superordinate category, associations, replacement by an implicit referent, unrelated referent). In forms of expression, artists use both verbal and nonverbal forms, and especially the different nonverbal ones. The described meaning profile of artists has even more variables than that of creativity in general and includes 77.5% of the same variables. The most noticeable difference is in regard to meaning dimensions which in the artists’ profile include four variables in addition to those in the general profile. These additional variables show that artists tend to treat constructs in abstract terms, embedding inputs in more comprehensive contexts, dwelling on cognitive elaborations, results, consequences, and judgements and evaluations, but avoid concern with functions. All other changes in the meaning profile of the artists as compared with that of general creativity actually amplify the same tendencies identified in the general meaning profile of creativity. The major differences are replacing the complementary type of relation by symbols, adding to the shifts of referents shifts to close referents, and adding emphasis to the nonverbal forms of expression.

The Meaning Profile of Artists: Characteristics A salient characteristic of the meaning profile of artists is the rich variety of components from all five sets of meaning variables that it includes. The number is higher than that of meaning variables in the personal meaning or the meaning profile that corresponds to personality traits (viz. 13 ± 7) (Kreitler and Kreitler, 1990a). The number and variety of meaning variables suggest

296

Shulamith Kreitler

that the profile has no central integrative focus but resembles rather a palette of colors, a toolkit that a painter or designer or mechanic may use according to their ideas and projects. The availability of variables is so large that they provide ample possibilities of selection that is guided by the artist’s ideas and plans for the creative product. Thus, the integrating force is in the creating artist. Another characteristic of the meaning profile of artists is that it demonstrates clearly the duality of tendencies in the different sets of meaning variables. The tendencies in regard to contents refer to the abstract and concrete, to the external-objective and internal-subjective, to the emotional and the evaluative. In regard to types of relation, the most salient contrasting tendencies support, on the one hand, the interpersonally-shared mode of meaning which is reality-adjusted and, on the other hand, the personalsubjective mode of meaning which is experientially-related. In the set of forms of relation, there are the tendencies to apply the conjunctive and the disjunctive, the normative and the desired, the propositional-factual and the questioning. In the referent shifts there are variables representing all possibilities of shifts – to close, medium and distant referents. Similarly in forms of expression, both verbal and non-verbal forms of expression are included. The duality of tendencies in the cognitive and emotional world of artists have been described before and may be one of the characteristics of creativity (Kreitler, 2014a, 2017, 1992, 2020). It probably contributes to the variety of meaning variables available for implementing creative ideas. The described profile includes meaning variables representing tendencies that have been examined and discussed by investigators of creativity, mainly divergent thinking, rich associations and distant referent shifts (Benedek, Jauk, Sommer, Arendasy, and Neubauer, 2014; Kreitler, 2020; Runco, 2007, 2021). Moreover, studies demonstrated that endorsement of specific meaning variables in an experimental setting, principally those concerned with personal meaning (viz. the exemplifying-illustrative and metaphoric-symbolic types of relation), were related to enhanced manifestations of creativity, including increases in fluency, flexibility, elaboration and originality in the Wallach and Kogan (1965) test, increases in the number of original responses in the Rorschach test, and increases in original associations (Kreitler and Kreitler, 1990b; Kreitler, 1999; Kreitler, Kreitler, and Wanounou, 1987-1988). Further, several studies showed that under the impact of induction of personal meaning as compared with the performance under the impact of interpersonally – shared meaning induction – participants produced a greater number of associations, generated more images, interpreted texts more often in

Creativity and Meaning

297

metaphoric terms and reported more unusual and bizarre experiences (Kreitler, 2009b). Notably, the promotion of thinking skills of creativity in teacher trainees resulted in changes in the meaning variables of exemplifyingillustrative and metaphoric-symbolic types of relation that were identified earlier as producing increases in creativity manifestations (Margaliot, 2005).

The Meaning Profile of Artists: The Core and the Branches Comparing the meaning profile of artists with the meaning profile of creativity based on the responses of creative individuals in domains other than art (i.e., scientists, managers, computer experts, technicians and teachers) showed that the meaning profile of artists resembled that of creative individuals who are not artists. The described meaning profile of creative non-artists included 87.09% of the same meaning variables as the profile of artists. Further studies showed that this finding was not extraordinary. Actually, it represented the model that characterizes the relations between the meaning profiles of different groups of creative individuals. There is a set of meaning variables that constitutes the core which is included in the meaning profiles of different groups of individuals creative in different domains. It appears that in each specific domain of creativity the core variables may be complemented by additional meaning variables appropriate for the specific creative products. For example, comparing small samples of creative individuals in mathematics showed that in each of the groups the meaning profile included meaning variables additional to those in the standard meaning profile of creativity described earlier. Thus, the additional meaning variables in the profiles of the mathematicians’ profiles - Quantity and Number, Locational Qualities, and Range of Inclusion – were included in the meaning profile of mathematicians (Weissler and Kreitler, in press). A study in which the architectural products of the participants were evaluated in terms of specific aspects of creativity, for example, practicality, aesthetic value, and innovation showed that each of these aspects included the major meaning variables of creativity but in addition also further meaning variables specific for the evaluated aspect; for example, the meaning dimension Function when practicality was the evaluated aspect, or Sensory Qualities when aesthetic value was the evaluated aspect (Casakin and Kreitler, 2005a, 2005b, 2008a, b; 2011a, 2013). When different aspects of the Torrance standard test of creativity (Torrance. 1974) were examined, it turned out that each was related to several of the meaning variables in the meaning profile of creativity but only to a few ones. For example, flexibility was related mainly to close and medium shifts

298

Shulamith Kreitler

of referent, and elaboration to the meaning dimensions range of application and structure. The results referring to the separate factors of creativity provided highly fragmented or partial profiles of creativity (Casakin and Kreitler, 2008a, b, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2013). The same principle applies also for artists. The described meaning profile of artists is a comprehensive profile based on summaries of profiles of different kinds of artists. It is likely that future studies that will explore the meaning profile of specific kinds of artists will identify particular meaning variables characterizing specific groups of artists.

Meaning Profile of Creativity in Children In order to learn more about creativity, the meaning profile of creativity in adults was compared with that in children. The meaning profile of creativity in children was examined in three studies, on the basis of the children’s responses to the Meaning Test. In each study different samples participated and creativity was assessed in terms of different measures. In one study the participants were children in the second and third grades (age range 7;2-9;4 years), who scored high or lower both on the Torrance test of creativity and the IQ test. In a second study the participants were students in the fifth and sixth grades (mean age 10;9) whose paintings and drawings (prepared for a local exhibition) were evaluated for creativity by three independent experts. In a third study the participants were Bedouin children in the seventh to the tenth grades (age range 12;2 to 14;10 years) whose creativity was assessed by their scores on the questionnaire of self-reported creative activities “The Things Done on your Own” (Torrance, 1962). The following meaning variables were found as characterizing the meaning profiles of the more creative children as compared with the less creative ones: the meaning dimensions of manner of occurrence and operation, structure, state, development, sensory qualities, feelings and emotions, cognitive qualities; the types of relation exemplifying-illustrative, and metaphoric-symbolic; the conjunctive form of relation; the shifts to more inclusive referents and to distant referents; and the nonverbal forms of expression. This set of meaning variables may be considered as characterizing creativity in the studied children in view of the fact that it recurred in three samples of children differing in age and cultural background and whose creativity has been assessed by different methods (Margaliot and Kreitler, in press). Notably, all the meaning variables included in this meaning profile have occurred also in the meaning profiles of creative adults, artists and non-artists.

Creativity and Meaning

299

The Spectator of Art The Creativity of the Art Spectator The spectators of art fulfill an important role in regard to the creative product. They are the point in which the work of art created by the artist comes fully into being. Their interpretation and experiencing of the work of art are considered as a significant contribution in completing the complex network whose components are the creator of art, the work of art and the spectator of art (Kreitler and Kreitler, 1972). Some artists assign to the spectator of art a role in the creation of the work of art. Most famous is Duchamp’s (1957) famous declaration that “a work of art is completed by the viewer” who relates the work of art with the external world by decoding and interpreting its implicit qualities. While Duchamp attributes to the spectator a role after the formal completion of the work of art, Sartre (1949) assigned to the spectator a role in the very act of creation, which cannot be completed without the joint effort of spectator and artist. In interpreting and experiencing a work of art the spectator of art engages in a full-fledged act of creativity which differs from the artist’s creativity but is no less unique, complex and creative (Kreitler and Kreitler, 1972). This approach justifies considering the spectator’s responses to the art object as creativity-related or creativity-supportive. Therefore, the spectator’s responses to art were explored in terms of the same tools examining the motivational and cognitive tendencies that have been applied in regard to the artist’s creativity. Ardent and Regular Art Spectators For the purpose of examining the motivation and meaning profile of the art spectator, ardent or devoted art spectators were defined on the basis of a prior survey in terms of the following criteria: individuals who engage regularly in contact with art, such as going regularly (about once in 4-6 weeks) to the theater, concerts, musical performances, or art exhibitions, reading literature, listening to recorded music, and considering exposure to art as part of their regular routine. The individuals whose behavior does not correspond to any of these or similar criteria were considered as regular art spectators. Only a tiny minority of individuals can be identified as total non-spectators. The percentage of individuals in each group varies in different populations and contexts.

300

Shulamith Kreitler

The Motivation of the Art Spectator: Four Factors of the Cognitive Orientation of the Art Spectators The assessment of motivation of the art spectator was done by means of a cognitive orientation questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed on the basis of a systematic standard interviewing of pretest subjects, in three consecutive steps whereby each subsequent step clarifies the deeper meaning of the former one (Kreitler, 2004b, 2014b). The final CO questionnaire included 13 themes. It was administered to 53 undergraduates who were art spectators of different kinds (including ardent spectators and total nonspectators). A factor analysis showed that the themes formed four factors, accounting for 67% of the variance, labeled as the cognitive, the evaluative, the perceptual and the affective factors of motivation of the spectator of art. The cognitive factor was defined by themes, such as gaining deeper understanding, seeing reality in a new perspective, learning new things, getting new ideas, resolving problems, thinking about things that are outside one’s daily occupation and routine, overcoming ambiguities, and facing paradoxes. The evaluative factor was defined by themes, such as analyzing, assessing, judging, comparing, classifying, criticizing, and gaining some distance from one’s daily routine. The perceptual factor was defined by themes, such as being affected by qualities of sensory stimuli (e.g., tones, harmonies, rhythms, melodies, movements, colors, shapes, structures), attending to incongruities and dwelling on unpleasant combinations. The affective factor was defined by themes, such as identifying with characters (e.g., film, literature), letting oneself go, experiencing new emotions or new combinations or sequences of emotions, sensitivity to beauty and aesthetics, experiencing harmony and discords. The CO questionnaire of the art spectator was administered to a preliminary sample of 30 ardent spectators of art (by self-report) and 30 controls who cared little about art. The responses showed that the scores on the CO questionnaire differentiated significantly between the ardent spectators and the controls mainly in beliefs about goals and beliefs about self, namely, the beliefs that most closely reflect the personal engagement with art, while the scores on general beliefs were only of borderline significance. The factors that yielded most highly significant findings were the cognitive and affective ones (Kreitler, 2022b, Chapter 8). Additional studies are likely to amplify these preliminary findings by revealing further patterns of responses in line with the interest of spectators in specific art forms. Preliminary explorations were devoted for clarifying whether the major determining factor of the response to a work of art would

Creativity and Meaning

301

be in terms of the nature of the properties and the content of the work of art or rather in terms of the salience of the factors in one’s motivation as an art spectator. It is evident that both the nature of the work of art and the spectator’s motivation play a role, but it seems that the spectator’s motivation has an upper hand. Future studies will contribute to clarifying the kind of interaction that takes place in regard to the spectators’ response.

The Meaning Profile of the ‘Ardent’ Art Spectator The meaning profile of the ardent art spectator was examined by comparing the meaning profiles of two groups of respondents who were graduate students in the behavioral sciences: 23 were identified on the basis of self-reports as “ardent” and 20 as regular art spectators. The meaning profiles were based on coding their responses to a standard meaning test administered on the internet. The meaning variables which differed significantly between the profiles of the two groups were considered as constituting the general meaning profile of the ardent art spectator. The meaning variables included in this meaning profile are: contextual allocation, range of inclusion: subclasses, function (negatively related), domain of application: subject and domain of application: object, structure, locational qualities, sensory qualities, feelings and emotions, judgments and evaluations by the referent and about the referent, cognitive qualities of the referent and about the referent; types of relation: comparative: similarity, exemplifying-illustrative: instance, situation, metaphoric types of relation: metaphors; forms of relation: propositional, conjunctive; shifts of referent: close (i.e., opposite and partial) and medium (i.e., referent modified by addition); forms of expression: verbal. Comparing the meaning profile of the ardent art spectator with that of the artist revealed that of the 20 meaning variables in the ardent spectator’s profile, 14 (70%) were identical to the variables in the artist’s meaning profile. Although evidently the artist’s meaning profile is so much richer and includes a greater variety of meaning variables, the similarity between the meaning profiles of the spectator and of the artist suggests an affinity in the approach of artist and spectator to art. It implies indirectly that the spectator is in some sense and to some degree a quasi-artist, and maybe the artist is in some sense and to some degree a kind of spectator of art. The Meaning Profile of Art The fact that the meaning profile of the artist turned out to be a kind of core profile for different creative acts, suggested the possibility that the meaning profile of the spectator of art could be a kind of core profile for different

302

Shulamith Kreitler

observations of art. This issue was explored by investigating the meanings individuals assign to art in general. The study that examined the general meaning profile of art consisted in requesting subjects to communicate the meaning of the referent art. The participants were 42 graduates and undergraduates in the behavioral sciences. The general meaning profile of art was defined in terms of the meaning variables that were used in the meaning communications of at least 15% of the subjects. These were the meaning dimensions feeling and emotions (experienced and perceived), judgements and evaluations (of the referent and aotu the referent), contextual allocation, range of inclusion: subclasses, function, and domain of application: subject; the types of relation the exemplifying-illustrative: instance, scene and the metaphoric-symbolic: interpretation and metaphor; the forms of relation propositional, conjunctive and the desired; the medium (i.e., previous meaning value, previous meaning values combined) and distant (i.e., verbal label, implicit meaning value) referent shifts; the verbal and nonverbal forms of expression. Comparing the general meaning profile of art to that of the ardent art spectator showed similarity between the two profiles. Of the 19 meaning variables in the meaning profile of art 15 (78.95%) were included also in the meaning profile of the spectator’s profile. The similarity of the meaning profiles of the spectator and of the meaning of art is not surprising. The spectator of art is expected to apply similar tools in terms of meaning variables in observing art and in conceptualizing art in general. Comprehending and experiencing art objects and constructing the concept of art in general may be expected to be intimately related and to contribute interactively to each other (Casakin and Kreitler, 2017; Kreitler, 2017, 2020).

Meaning in the World of Art The analyses up to now dealt with the creator of art and the spectator of art. For each of these protagonists in the domain art two sets of findings were presented: the motivational ones and the operational ones. In regard to artists, analysis in terms of the cognitive orientation approach showed themes relating in artists to three factors – self-development, contributing to others and promoting truth. All three factors characterized artists, but only the first two characterized creative individuals in non-art domains. In regard to art spectators, the identified themes were different and defined four motivational factors: the cognitive, evaluative, perceptual and affective. All four factors

Creativity and Meaning

303

characterize spectators of art, whereby the cognitive and affective ones had the greater contribution in the studies up to now. The factors for artists and spectators share primarily the focusing on art objects, but the motivational orientation for the artist and the spectator differs in major respects. The second set of findings in regard to artists and spectators were the meaning profiles that are considered as implementing the motivational tendencies. Comparisons showed that the profiles for artists and spectators indicated a certain degree of similarity in the meaning variables they include. The similarity consisted primarily in the fact that the meaning variables in each of the sets included variables representing contrasts or binary tendencies, for example, meaning dimensions representing the abstract and the concrete, the external world and the internal world, the cognitive and the affective; types of relation representing both the interpersonally-shared mode of meaning and the personal-subjective mode; forms of relation representing both the propositional or factual and the desired and questioning approaches; the shifts of referent representing shifts of medium and of distant degree; modes of expression representing both the verbal and nonverbal forms. This rich variety of meaning variables may serve two major objectives: enhancing one’s sensitivity and attention towards discordant components in the external and internal environments; and providing the means for resolving the discordances. The similarity in the meaning profiles of artists and spectators sheds light on the fact that both artist and spectator share on a deeper level interest in the nature and structure of reality. It is evident that many if not all disciplines and sciences deal with the nature and structure of reality, each does it from a specific perspective and with specific tools, probing under and beyond the surface reality. Art offers a unique way of dealing with reality by means of the art object (Kreitler, 2004a; Kreitler and Kreitler, 1980). The art object presents a new reality. Although its creation is based partly on using the same components that exist outside art, e.g., tones, colors, shapes and movements, the objective of the artist is to use these materials for expressing or communicating something beyond the commonly perceived reality in which we move and function. The perceptual properties of art objects are used for probing beyond the surface into the underlying or archeological reality, and for shaping other kinds of reality, such as the normative or regulatory reality, and the prophetic or desired reality. All these perspectives hinge on the work of art, folded into it, integrated through it, stimulating through it continuously. The target of the stimulation is the art spectator whose

304

Shulamith Kreitler

cognitive and affective responses engender each time anew the message, communication and vision of the artist. The stimulation for experiencing and thereby recreating the art object is enhanced by the contrasts, multileveledness and multiplicity of meanings folded into the work of art itself, as well as by the special location in which it is observed. The context in which the works of art are placed somehow changes the manner of perceiving the shape, function and appearance of the art objects and makes the observer wonder about what they are and why they look as they do. They are reality but they are different variants of reality even if they are replicas or photographs but still, even then they are not completely and fully identical to known common reality. Hence, the spectator starts wondering what kind of thing that object is, what it is all about. The perceived object and its context stimulate the observer to continue guessing or intuiting the meanings of the work of art as its underlying reality. The variety of contrasting and complementary meaning variables that are available to the spectators of art in their meaning profiles are tools they may apply for resolving the problems raised by the confrontation with the work of art. This is one major way in which the work of the artist and the response of the spectator complement one another. The artist creates an object that presents a reality in some questionable sense or form. The spectator of art is concerned with understanding what the object of art represents. In both cases what they deal with consists in creating meaning with the means available to each of them. Both the artist and the spectator can pursue their own ways of constructing the meaning of and through the work of art. The freedom each has in constructing their meaning seems to be different. The artists seem to be limited only by their ideas and availability of adequate materials for implementing the conception they have. The labor often involved in creativity is testimony to the effort it may require to get to the precise expression of the conception one has. The spectators seem to be limited by the object of art to which they are exposed. However, despite the limitations the spectator may also have some freedom in trying out different kinds of meaning elaborations. The different kinds of elaborated meanings may develop particularly under the condition that the spectator gets another opportunity to elaborate the meaning of the work of art beyond the first stage which is focused primarily on identifying more concretely what the object is. When there is a chance to delve deeper into the work of art, it becomes evident that very different elaborations of meaning emerge. In some cases, these developments take the course of elaborating cognitively the involved meanings, more along the track of the interpersonally-shared meaning in one’s meaning profile, supported by

Creativity and Meaning

305

the motivational cognitive and evaluative factors. In other cases, the developments take the course of elaborating the involved meanings more along the track of the subjective-personal mode of meaning, supported by the motivational perceptual and affective factors. Sometimes, both tracks are used in the course of exploring the meanings of the work of art, in general and for oneself (Kreitler, 2022b, Chapter 8). The various explorations in regard to creating, shaping, observing, comprehending, or experiencing art hover around the issue of the meaning of the work of art. The different explorations imply that one of the major roles of art could be promoting meaning-making. Meaning-making is an important skill for survival that is needed by everyone in many domains and stages in life, ranging from education to psychotherapy (Hodgson and Verpooten, 2015; Jensen and Bonde, 2018; Kreitler and Kreitler, 1978, 1986; Stuckey and Noble, 2010; Tomšič Čerkez, 2015; Tyler and Likova, 2012). This skill needs to be trained and practiced for one’s cognitive and affective well-being. Art could be likened to an open free arena for learning, practicing and experimenting with meaning-making by responding to the many stimuli for the generation, expression and creation of meanings, as an artist or spectator. Art is where every person is invited to express one’s meanings in a form that may stimulate others too and involve them in realizing their creative contribution to comprehending the art object though interpretation and experiencing. Meaning-making blurs the boundaries between creator and spectator of art, both of whom are involved in creating, and realizing their creative potential singly and in interaction.

References Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Sommer, M., Arendasy, M., and Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: the common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity. Intelligence, 46, 73– 83. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2005a). The determinants of creativity: flexibility in design. Engineering and Product Design Education Conference 2005: Crossing Design Boundaries, Napier University, Edinburgh, U.K., September 15-16, 2005. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2005b). The nature of creativity in design: factors for assessing individual creativity. International Workshop on Studying Designers, University of Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France, October 17-18, 2005. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2006). Self-assessment of creativity: implications for design education. Engineering and Product Design Education International Conference, University of Applied Sciences, Salzburg, Austria, December 2006.

306

Shulamith Kreitler

Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2008a). Identifying motivation for creativity in design education. In New Perspectives in Design Education, Escola Tècnica Superior d’Enginyeria Industrial de Barcelona (ETSEIB), 2008 (pp. 49-54). Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC). Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2008b). Factors of design problem-solving and their contribution to creativity. Open House International, 33(1), 46-60. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2011a). The cognitive profile of creativity in design. Thinking skills and Creativity, 6, 159-168. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2011b). Meaning-based Assessment in Creative Design. 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED11), Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Copenhagen, CD. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2011c). The cognitive profile of creativity in design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 159-168. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2013). Studying the design of problem solving through the theory of meaning. In S. Helie (Ed.), The psychology of problem solving: An interdisciplinary approach (chap. 10). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2007). Correspondences and divergencies in creativity evaluations between architects and students. Journal of Environmental Planning and Design: Design B, 35, 666-678. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2010). Motivation for creativity in architectural design: Differences between architects and engineers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 477-493. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2015). Motivation in design as a driving force for defining motives of design. In T. Taura (Ed.), Principia designae- Pre-Design, Design, and Post-Design (pp. 77-89). Tokyo: Springer. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2017). Meaning profiles of dwellings, pathways, and metaphors in design: Implications for education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 962-973. Duchamp, M. (1957). The creative act. In M. Sanouillet and E. Peterson (Eds.). The essential writings of Marcel Duchamp (pp. 138-140). London: Thames and Hudson. Jensen, A, and Bonde, L. O. (2018). The use of arts interventions for mental health and wellbeing in health settings. Perspectives in Public Health, 138(4), 209-214. Kreitler, S. (1981). Meaning and creativity in the arts. Symposium on Cognition and the Arts, dedicated to ‘Psychology of the Arts’ by Kreitler and Kreitler, Philadelphia, PA., March 1981. (Organized by the University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Art and Symbolic Behavior). Kreitler, S. (1985). The psychosemantic aspects of art. Erste Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Musikpsychologie [1st Annual Convention of the German Association for the Psychology of Music], Hanover, Germany, February 22-24, 1985. Kreitler, S. (2004a). Bedeutung und Kunst: Die kognitiven Wirkungen der Kunst. [Meaning and art: The cognitive effects of art]. Interdisciplinary symposium on “The poetry / poetics of living: Sense-making in science, daily life and art. Organized by the Austrian Society of Organismic Research and Theory in cooperation with the Theological-Philosophic School of Higher Studies, Heiligenkreuz Monastery, Heiligenkreuz, Austria, September 20-21, 2004.

Creativity and Meaning

307

Kreitler, S. (2004b). The cognitive guidance of behavior. In J. T. Jost, M. R. Banaji, and D. A. Prentice (Eds.), Perspectivism in Social Psychology: The Yin and Yang of scientific progress (pp. 113-126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kreitler, S. (2009a). Meaning-based assessment of creativity. 10th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, Ghent, Belgium, September 16-19, 2009. Kreitler, S. (2009b). Altered states of consciousness as structural variations of the cognitive system. In E. Franco (Ed., in collab. with D. Eigner), Yogic perception, meditation and altered states of consciousness (pp. 407-434). Vienna, Austria: Oestrreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kreitler, S. (2014a). Meaning and its manifestations: The Meaning System. In S. Kreitler and T. Urbanek (Eds.) Conceptions of meaning (pp. 3-32). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers. Kreitler, S. (2014b). Changing attitudes and beliefs. In C. Pracana (Ed.), International psychological applications conference and trends (InPact) (pp. 99-102). World Institute for Advanced Research and Science (WIARS). Lisbon: Portugal. Kreitler, S. (2017) Creativity: Its cognitive, emotional and motivational aspects. In C. Pracana and M. Wang (Eds.), International psychological applications and Trends (InPact) (pp. 484-486). Lisbon, Portugal: W. I. A. R. Kreitler, S. (2019a). Motivational and cognitive correlates of creativity (lecture, accompanying a poster presentation). XVI European Congress of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University in Moscow, Russia, 2-5 July, 2019. Kreitler, S. (2019b). Meaning-based creativity assessment. Lecture. IMEC International Meaning Conference; London; 12-14 July 2019. Kreitler, S. (2020). The many faces of creativity. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), New frontiers in creativity (pp. 3-39). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers. Kreitler, S. (2022a). The construct of meaning. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers. Kreitler, S. (2022b). Spheres of meaning. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers. Kreitler, S., and Casakin, H. (2009a). Motivation for creativity in design students. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 282-293. Kreitler, S., and Casakin, H. (2012). Motivation for creativity in design: Its nature, assessment and promotion. In J. N. Franco and A. E. Svensgaard (Eds.), Handbook on psychology of motivation: New research (pp. 107-124). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers. Kreitler, H., and Kreitler, S. (1972). Psychology of the arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kreitler, S., and Kreitler, H. (1978). Art therapy: Quo vadis ? Journal of Art Psychotherapy, 5, 199-209. Kreitler, H., and Kreitler, S. (1980). Art, meaning and reality. Invited Address. APA Convention, Montreal, Canada, August 1980. Kreitler, H., and Kreitler, S. (1982). The theory of cognitive orientation: Widening the scope of behavior prediction. In B. Maher and W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 11 (pp. 101-169). New York: Academic Press. Kreitler S., and Kreitler, H. (1986). Die psychosemantischen Aspekte der Kunst. [The psychosemantic aspects of art]. In K. E. Behne, G. Kleinen and H. de la Motte-Haber

308

Shulamith Kreitler

(Eds.), Musik Psychologie, Empirische Forschungen - Aesthetische Experimente: Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft fuer Musikpsychologie (Vol. 3; pp. 129-152). Wilhelmshaven, Germany: Florian Noetzel Verlag. Kreitler, S., and. Kreitler, H. (1988). Psychosemantic foundations of creativity. International Conference on Thinking. Aberdeen, England, August 16-18, 1988. Kreitler, S., and Kreitler, H. (1990a). The cognitive foundations of personality traits. New York: Plenum. Kreitler, H., and Kreitler, S. (1990b). The psychosemantic foundations of creativity. In K. J. Gilhooly, M. Keane, R. Logie, and G. Erdos (Eds.), Lines of thought: Reflections on the psychology of thinking (Vol. 2, pp. 191-201). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Kreitler, H., and Kreitler, S. (1992). Motivational and cognitive determinants of artistic creativity. Keynote Address. 12th International Congress of Empirical Aesthetics, Berlin, Germany, July 26-28, 1992. Kreitler, S. (1999). Consciousness and meaning. In J. A. Singer, and P. Salovey (Eds.), At play in the fields of consciousness (pp. 175-206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kreitler, S., Kreitler, H., and Wanounou, V. (1987-1988). Cognitive modification of test performance in schizophrenics and normals. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 7, 227-249. Margaliot, A. (2005). A model for teaching the cognitive skill of melioration to pre-service science teachers in a college for teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, BarIlan University, Israel. Margaliot, A., and Kreitler, S. (in press). Meaning-based assessment by creativity in children. Runco, M. A. (2007). A hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. New Horizons in Education, 55(3), 1-9. Runco, M. A. (2021). Creativity: Theories and themes: research, development, and practice (2nd Ed.). New York: Academic Press. Runco, M. A., and Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92–96. Runco, M. A., and Kim, D. (2018). The four Ps of creativity: Person, Product, Process, and Press. In J. Stein (Ed.), Reference module in neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology. Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/B9780128093245061939 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]. Sääksjärvi, M., and Gonçalves, M. (2018). Creativity and meaning: Including meaning as a component of creative solutions. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 32, 365–379. Sartre, P. (1948). Situations, II: Qu’est-ce que la littérature ? Paris: Gallimard. [What is literature ? Translated by B. Frechtman. New York: Philosophical Library, 1949]. Stuckey, H. L., and Nobel, J. (2010). The connection between art, healing, and public health: A review of current literature. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 254263. Tomšič Čerkez, B. (2015). Teaching and learning through Art. Center for Educational Policy (CEPS), 5(3), 5-9. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Creativity and Meaning

309

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Norms technical manual: Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Lexington, MA: Ginn and Co. Tyler, C., and Likova, L. (2012). The role of the visual arts in enhancing the learning process. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 6 (8). Doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00008. Walia, C. (2019) A dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 31,3, 237- 247. Wallach, M., A., and Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Weissler, K., and Kreitler, S. (in press). Creativity in mathematics of high school students.

About the Authors

Editor, and Author of Chapter 13 Shulamith Kreitler, Professor, PhD Shulamith Kreitler is a full professor at the school of psychological sciences, Tel-Aviv University and head of the Psychooncology Research Center at the Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. Professor Kreitler was born in Tel-Aviv, has studied psychology, philosophy and psychopathology in Israel, Switzerland and the USA. She earned her PhD in Bern Switzerland. Dr. Kreitler worked as a professor of psychology in Harvard, Princeton and Yale in the USA, as well as in Argentina and Vienna, Austria. She has lectured in Moscow University, The University of Brno, The University of Frankfurt, Beigin University, and other universities. She has been a professor of psychology at Tel-Aviv University since 1986. She is a certified clinical and health psychologist. Currently she teaches psychology at Tel-Aviv University and is the head of the psychooncology research center at Sheba Medical Center. Has published about 250 papers and 23 books in motivation, cognition, psychopathology and health psychology. She has created the theory of meaning, and the cognitive orientation theory of behavior, health and wellness. Some of her publications: The Psychology of Art (1972) (together with Hans Kreitler), Cognitive Orientation and Behavior (1976), The Cognitive Foundations of Personality Traits (1990), Handbook of Chronic Pain (2007), Pediatric PsychoOncology: Psychosocial Aspects and Clinical Interventions (2004, 2012 2nd Edition By Blackwell/Wiley), Systems of Logic and the construction of Order (with Fleck, Ropolyi and Eigner, 2012), Cognition and Motivation (Cambridge University Press) Consciousness: Its nature and functions (together with Oded Maimon), Conceptions of meaning (together with Tomas Urbanek), The Construct of Meaning (Nova Science Publishers), and most recently New Frontiers in Creativity (2020, Nova Science Publishers). Email: [email protected]

312

About the Authors

Chapter 1 Mark Runco, PhD Mark Runco is SOU Director of Creativity Research & Programming. He has studied creativity for over 30 years. His work began with a dissertation on divergent thinking, which led to his PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the Claremont Graduate School. Since that time, he has published over 300 books, articles, and chapters on creativity and closely related topics. He has taught a variety of creativity courses (e.g., Assessment of Creativity; Creative Cognition; Creativity: What it is and What it is Not; Diversity and Creativity: Enhancing & Educating Creativity; Everyday Creativity) and several on Innovation. He earned tenure at the University of Hawaii, Hilo, and then moved to California State University, Fullerton, where he started and directed the Creativity Research Center of Southern California. He then accepted an Endowed Professorship at the Univ of Georgia, where he was also Director of the Torrance Creativity Center. Along the way he has held adjunct positions at Buffalo State University and the Norwegian Business School. He is currently the Director of Creativity Research at Southern Oregon University, as well as a Fellow and Past President of Division 10 of the APA. He is Distinguished Research Fellow of the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology and Founding Editor (now Emeritus) of the Creativity Research Journal. In 2021 he became Editor of the Journal of Creativity. His creativity textbook has been translated into 10 languages. The 3rd edition is due out in 2022. The 3rd edition of the Encyclopedia of Creativity, which he co-edits, was released in 2020 (www.markrunco.com). He remains CEO of Creativity Testing Services, LLC (www.creativitytestingservices.com) and is Co-Executive Director of the annual Southern Oregon University Creativity Conference (www.soucreativityconference.com). His various awards and grants (e.g., Spencer Foundation, Creative Education Foundation) and further details on his career can be found, along with his Curriculum Vitae, at www.markrunco.com.

Chapter 2 Eva Sollárová, PhD Eva Sollárová is a professor of educational psychology at Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia. She has established and had been a

About the Authors

313

Dean of Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Care, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra for 10 years. Her research is in creativity, also in academic and practical intelligence, with an emphasis on adapting diagnostic tools to Slovak conditions. She has developed the applications of the Person-Centered Approach to management, leadership and coaching, verified by her own research and practical applications in various settings. Since 2017, she has been involved in developing, implementing and evaluating a model of core competencies of leaders in the Slovak educational context (as a principal research investigator of the research project APVV 170557).

Chapter 3 Julia Skobeleva, PhD Dr. Julia Skobeleva is a professor (with educational background in data science, psychology, and management) and a professional speaker who teaches at seven universities in Austria and works as an innovation strategist and an executive coach in Vienna. She was formerly a visiting professor at the University of Oxford and Stockholm School of Economics. Her research focuses on social learning, culture, and human consciousness. She is the author of the Mental Hologram Innovation or 3-D Learning Method, that helps to harness creativity, catalyze innovation, and produce game-changing inventions in business, science, and technology. She was fortunate to inspire and help insatiably curious minds transform themselves into the great innovators they were always meant to be.

Chapter 4 Eirliani Abdul Rahman Eirliani co-founded YAKIN (Youth, Adult survivors & Kin In Need), a notfor-profit she established with Associate Professor Daniel Fung, CEO of the Singapore Institute of Mental Health to help child victims and adult survivors of child sexual abuse. YAKIN is a member of Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council. She served in the Singapore Foreign Service from 2005 to 2015 and was formerly Programme Director at the Kailash Satyarthi Children’s Foundation US and Senior Assistant Director at the Singapore National

314

About the Authors

Council of Social Service. She is also a founding member of the Global Diplomacy Lab whose patron is the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. Eirliani represented Singapore at the India-Singapore Strategic Dialogues in 2019 and 2021. She is a member of Chatham House. Winner of the 2015 BMW Foundation Responsible Leaders Award, she is a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Eirliani was lead editor of the peer-reviewed compendium The Demographic Dividend and the Power of Youth: Voices from the Global Diplomacy Lab (Anthem Press 2021). She contributed a chapter to the book India on Our Minds (World Scientific Publishing 2020) co-edited by Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh. She also wrote The Rise of the RightWing: Student Activism in North India, May 26, 2020 published by the National University of Singapore’s Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS). She was lead author for a report on a national strategy on child protection online published by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in August 2020.

Chapter 5 Georgia Lalou Georgia Lalou is a PhD candidate at the Department of Planning and Regional Development of the University of Thessaly on ‘The Integration of Marketing and Branding Strategies in the Creative City Approach: International Experience and Greek Cities’. She is an Architect Engineer with postgraduate studies in ‘Urban & Regional Planning’. Since 2014 she has been a member of the Laboratory of Tourism Planning, Research and Policy. She has research experience in urban planning, place marketing and place branding and heritage management. In the context of her PhD thesis she was awarded an IKYSIEMENS scholarship. She has publications in scientific international journals, conference proceedings, etc. Her research interests are place marketing and place branding, creativity in cities, participatory planning and cultural policies.

Sotiria Katsafadou Sotiria Katsafadou is an architect with MSc in Urban and Regional Planning and a PhD Candidate of the Department of Planning and Regional Development of the University of Thessaly. She received 2 scholarships

About the Authors

315

during her studies. As a researcher in Laboratory of Tourism Planning, Research and Policy she participated in several research projects related to urban and regional planning, place marketing and tourism planning such as the Strategic Marketing Plan of Larisa, the Strategic Marketing Plan of Kozani, INTERREG IVC project CHARTS (Culture and Heritage Added value to Regional policies for Tourism Sustainability) and in the Bid of the institution of the European Capital of Culture 2021 for the city of Elefsina in Greece. She presented several papers in Greek and international conferences and published papers in scientific journals. Her research interests focus on the interaction of the concepts of landscape and Place Marketing.

Alex M. Deffner Professor of Urban and Leisure Planning at the Department of Planning and Regional Development, School of Engineering, University of Thessaly. He is the director of the Laboratory of Tourism Planning, Research and Policy, and he was the director of the Postgraduate Programme ‘Planning and Development of Tourism and Culture’ (2014-20). He has professional experience since 1986, research experience since 1988, teaching experience since 1996. He has scientific publications in journals, books, conference proceedings, etc. His work covers the fields of tourism, culture, sport, creativity, place marketing/ branding, event planning, urban planning, urban regeneration, etc.

Chapter 6 Ulas Akkucuk, PhD Ulas Akkucuk is an Associate Professor of Quantitative Methods at Bogazici University Department of Management, Istanbul, Turkey. Dr. Akkucuk has a BS in Industrial Engineering from Bilkent University (1997), an MBA from Bogazici University (2000), and a PhD in Management Science and Information Systems from Rutgers University (2004). He has taught Statistics, CRM and Data Mining, and Global Aspects of Management courses, among others, at both graduate and undergraduate levels. He is associate editor and editorial board member of International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (IJRBS) and has been an ad hoc reviewer for journals such as Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Bogazici Journal, International Journal of Business Economics and Management,

316

About the Authors

Journal of Cleaner Production and Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. He is currently the editor of International Journal of Environmental Sustainability and Green Technologies. He has edited nine books so far with IGI Global, two of them have been indexed by WoS. He has published in journals such as Journal of Classification, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, Sustainability, and European Journal of Health Economics.

Chapter 7 Katalin Varga, PhD, DSc Dr. Katalin Varga is a professor at Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), the head of the Department of Affective Psychology, and past president of the Hungarian Association of Hypnosis, board member of International Society of Hypnosis. She was awarded a Postgraduate Fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1986-1990) to study the subjective experiences associated with hypnosis and the role of suggestions in critical states. She was awarded her degree of “Doctor of University” (ELTE) in 1991, and a PhD in 1997 on comparing the subjective and behavioral effects of hypnosis. She was awarded “Doctor of Science” (DSc, Hungarian Academy of Sciences) in 2016 for describing phenomenological synchrony. As a member of the “Budapest hypnosis research laboratory,” she is investigating hypnosis in an interactional framework, and in this multilevel approach she is focusing on the phenomenological data. For the past 20 years she has been working with patients in a hospital setting – mostly critically ill patients – applying suggestive and hypnosis techniques. She is the founder and professor of the postgraduate training of suggestive communication in somatic medicine, co-organized by the Hungarian Association of Hypnosis and Semmelweis University School of Medicine, Budapest. She has published numerous articles and books which present her research findings hypnosis, and the clinical experiences on the application of suggestive techniques with the critically ill.

Gabor Ruzsa Gabor Ruzsa is assistant professor at Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Statistics, and PhD candidate at Eotvos Lorand University,

About the Authors

317

Doctoral School of Psychology. His research areas include Decision Making, Cognitive Computational Modeling, and Health Psychology.

Chapter 8 Michael DelMonte, PhD Dr Michael (“Michelo”) DelMonte was born in The Hague, The Netherlands. He has primary degrees in Genetics and Psychology, as well as a Higher Diploma in Education, a research MSc and a PhD  both from the Psychology Department, Trinity College, Dublin. His doctorate was on psychophysiological, personality, mindfulness and other aspects of meditation. Michael obtained an M. Psych. Sc. in Constructivist Psychotherapy from University College, Dublin. He is also a member of the Irish Forum of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, and a Fellow of the Psychological Society of Ireland. For about 30 years Michael conducted individual, couple, family and group psychotherapy in the Psychosomatic and Psychiatric Units of St. James’s Hospital and St. Patrick’s University Hospital, Dublin (where he was Principal Psychologist). He is currently Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, Trinity College, Dublin where he lectures in psychology and psychotherapy. Michael has published more than 90 articles and a book on psychotherapy, meditation, mindfulness, evolution and education. In 1990 Michael was co-founder in Tokyo of “The Transnational Network for Physical, Psychological and Spiritual Well-Being” which, by holding conferences internationally every one or two years, and by publishing their proceedings, sought to introduce Eastern perspectives into Western Psychology and vice versa. Michael has been a quest speaker at more than two dozen international conferences linked to his interests in psychotherapy and Eastern philosophical traditions.

Chapter 9 Ilana Dubovi, RN, PhD Ilana Dubovi is a faculty member at Tel-Aviv University, Israel. She is a registered nurse (RN) who followed her passion for design & technology by

318

About the Authors

studying and receiving her PhD in education at the Department of Learning, Instruction, and Teacher Education, University of Haifa. She then completed two postdoc positions, first at the Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences Department at Utah State University and secondly at the Department of Education at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel. Her research encompasses a synergy of learning sciences, learning analytics, health and medical sciences, and educational digital technology. Her prime interests are grounded in understanding the cognitive and emotional characteristics of learning processes and in examining how educational technology can restructure the development of mechanistic schemes among patients, students, and health-care practitioners to improve both health outcomes and patient safety.

Chapter 10 Jacques Grégoire, PhD Jacques Grégoire, PhD, is Full Professor at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Louvain, Belgium. His research interests include assessment of learning and learning disabilities, intellectual assessment, and relationship between learning and creativity. He developed or adapt several diagnostic tests. He was a scientific adviser for the development of the US version of the WAIS-IV and the WISC-V. His academic publications include over 100 journal articles, book chapters, and books/monographs. He is the author of several French books on testing and diagnostic, including Clinical assessment of child intelligence and Clinical assessment of adult intelligence, and a reference book on the methodology of test development, written with Dany Laveault: Introduction to test theories in Psychology and Education. He has served as President of the International Test Commission (2006-2008). With Todd Lubart, he developed a test of mathematical creativity within the EPoC framework.

Chapter 11 Ken Gilhooly, PhD Ken Gilhooly graduated in Psychology from Edinburgh University in 1967. He then earned an MSc and PhD in Mathematical Psychology at the University

About the Authors

319

of Stirling and in 1970 joined the Psychology Department of Aberdeen University. In 2000 he joined Brunel University London as Professor of Psychology and then moved to the University of Hertfordshire in 2004, becoming Emeritus in 2012. He has published extensively on problem solving and held numerous research grants and continues to work on theoretical issues in the psychology of thinking

Chapter 12 Arie Sover, Professor Prof. Arie Sover, is a Lecturer and researcher in Communication and Humor Studies, at the Baka College and the Open University of Israel. He focuses on humor research, he published many articles and six books on humor such as: Jewish Humor [Cambridge Scholars 2021]; The languages of humor [Bloomsbury Academic 2018)]; Humor: the pathway of human laughter and Laughter [Carmel 2018, in Hebrew]. Founder and Editor of the Israeli Journal of Humor Research, an international Journal, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Humor Mekuvan: the first Hebrew Scientific Journal of Humor Research, Founder and Chair of the Israeli Society for Humor Studies.

Index

# 3-D insight, 41, 42, 43, 44, 53, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61 3-D learning method, 42, 44, 52, 55, 314

A abduction, 199, 204 abductive reasoning, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 212 accommodation, 103, 159, 220 affiliative humor, 263 Agios Lavrentios/Greece, v, ix, 91, 92, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 alternative constructs, 152 analytic thinking, 227, 250, 252 artificial intelligence, 184, 187, 308

B benevolent creativity, 1, 11 Bergson, Henri, 270, 278 blind variation, 227, 233, 248, 249, 252 blind variation and selective retention, 227

C California Psychological Inventory (CPI), 5 cheerfulness, 264 circular economy, 124 Coates, E. and Coates, A., 264, 278 cognitive conflict, 208, 221 cognitive dissonance, x, 199, 207, 209, 224, 272 cognitive effort, 264, 266, 267, 278 cognitive models, 265

cognitive orientation, 283, 289, 290, 292, 300, 302, 307, 311 cognitive performance, 43 cognitive process, viii, ix, 42, 130, 131, 134, 144, 185, 229, 249, 257, 260, 261, 265, 276, 283 cognitive processes, viii, ix, 130, 131, 134, 144, 185, 229, 249, 257, 260, 265, 276, 283 cognitive-experiential self-theory, 148 comic gap, 265, 266, 267 computational thinking, vi, x, 183, 184, 185, 187, 194, 195, 196, 197 convergent thinking, 259, 261, 264, 266, 278 craft, 83, 259, 278 creative definition, 227 creative manager, 19, 39 creative personality, 3, 17, 262 creative potential, vii, xiii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 34, 111, 167, 168, 177, 202, 280, 305 creative process, 3, 8, 17, 20, 21, 22, 32, 34, 36, 86, 186, 221, 227, 229, 233, 234, 243, 248, 253, 254, 264, 276, 284 creative thinking, 3, 57, 145, 185, 199, 215, 227, 250, 258, 259, 269, 279, 281 creativity cycle, 152, 169 creativity in organizations, ix crucial experiment, 219 culture pyramid, 42, 59

D dark side of creativity, 1, 18 De Bono, E., 273, 279 De Saussure, Ferdinand, 272, 279 decipher, 257, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 274, 276, 278

322

Index

decision making, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 137, 143, 146, 147, 148, 318 decoding humor, 264 defense mechanism, ix, 257, 260, 274 developing creativity, 19 dilation, 165 diplomacy, v, vii, ix, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 315

E Ecological Innovation Framework (ECOV8)/ECOV8 Framework, 115, 116 ecology, v, ix, xvi, 105, 111, 112, 113, 114 epistemological obstacle(s), x, 199, 209, 210 EPoC, 8, 9, 320 experimental method, 200, 201, 223

F falsifiability, 204 fluency, 18, 243, 259, 263, 296

G George Kelly, 152, 153, 155, 156 Global Diplomacy Lab, v, ix, lxv, 65, 66, 71, 74, 87, 88, 315 Greece, v, ix, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98, 102, 104, 106, 107, 316 green technologies, 317 Greengross, G., 262, 263, 264, 279

272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 320 Humor Styles Questionnaire, 263 humorous situation, viii, 257, 260, 262, 264, 265, 266, 269, 274, 276, 278

I imagination, xvii, 93, 95, 169, 170, 172, 173, 217, 254, 264 inductive reasoning, 202, 203 initial knowledge, 199, 209, 211, 212, 215 innovation, v, ix, x, xvii, 7, 18, 19, 23, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 74, 83, 88, 93, 94, 103, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 120, 124, 192, 195, 224, 249, 254, 255, 284, 297, 313, 314 innovation diplomacy, 65, 66, 67, 68, 88 Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR), 4, 5, 9, 14, 17 intuition, v, x, 21, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 230, 248 intuitive creativity, 129, 172 intuitive decision making, 129, 130, 131, 135, 137, 138, 139

J Jews, 10, 271 jokes, 262, 264, 270, 271, 273, 276

K health care practitioner, 129, 130, 131 healthcare technology, 183, 184, 194, 196 history of science, 200, 202, 205, 207, 208, 215, 217, 219, 223 Huizinga, J., 263, 279 humor, vi, viii, 257, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271,

Kelly, George, 152, 153, 155, 156 Kuhn, Thomas, 45, 63, 202, 205, 224

L Lacan, Jacques, viii, xi, 156, 157, 158, 159, 169, 179, 181 language skills, 163, 270 languages, 49, 174, 313, 320

Index laughter, 257, 262, 265, 269, 272, 274, 277, 278, 280, 281, 320 Laurel and Hardy, 272

M makers, 73, 147, 184, 187 Marks, Groucho, 273 meaning, vi, viii, 42, 62, 94, 132, 161, 195, 201, 211, 214, 230, 267, 271, 273, 280, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311 meaning variables, 286, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 301, 302, 303, 304 medical decision making, 147, 149 mental hologram, v, viii, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 61, 314 mental hologram innovation method, 42, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55 meta-language, 261, 270, 273, 277 Mills Longitudinal Study, 4 mindfulness, vi, viii, 151, 152, 153, 154, 161, 164, 165, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 180, 182, 318

323 paradigm shift, 125, 199, 202, 204, 206, 207 perceived usefulness, 191, 193 place branding/marketing, 91 Popper, Karl, 164, 182, 204, 217, 225 principle of parsimony, 203 problem solving, vi, viii, 7, 21, 111, 129, 131, 133, 181, 185, 227, 228, 234, 235, 239, 241, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 306, 320

Q questionnaire, 190, 191, 290, 298, 300

R recover, 119, 120 recycle, 119, 120, 123 referent shifts, 285, 296, 302 representation, 94, 156, 157, 158, 207, 210, 215, 223, 235, 236, 241, 251, 252, 278 Robot Attitudes Scale (RAS), 191, 192 Rogers, Carl R., ix, 4, 18, 19, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39 Runco Ideational Behavior Scale, 11

N

S

normal science, 205 nurses, x, 137, 138, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194 nursing, vi, vii, x, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

scientific creativity, vi, x, 199, 200, 204, 212, 215, 217, 219, 220, 223 scientific education, 199, 200, 212, 215 selective retention, 227, 233, 248, 249, 252, 253 sensory landscape, v, ix, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107 socio-cognitive conflict, 199, 221, 224 soundscape, v, ix, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 108 sustainability, v, 63, 99, 111, 112, 113, 114, 124, 125, 126, 316, 317 syllogism, 200 systems model, 24, 31

O objective reality, 155, 156, 169, 174 organizational domain, 19, 20

P paradigm, ix, 45, 125, 192, 199, 202, 204, 205, 207, 220

324

Index

T

V

technological creativity, vi, x, 1, 10, 11, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189, 192, 194 technophobia, 183, 184, 189, 190, 193, 194, 196 Technophobia and Technophilia Questionnaire (TTQ), 189, 190

via negativa, 178, 179

U unconscious processing, 131, 132

W William of Ockham, Franciscan monk, 203