Modelling creativity: identifying key components through a corpus-based approach

Creativity is a complex, multi-faceted concept encompassing a variety of related aspects, abilities, properties and behaviours. If we wish to study creativity scientifically, then a tractable and well-articulated model of creativity is required. Such a model would be of great value to researchers investigating the nature of creativity and in particular, those concerned with the evaluation of creative practice. This paper describes a unique approach to developing a suitable model of how creative behaviour emerges that is based on the words people use to describe the concept. Using techniques from the field of statistical natural language processing, we identify a collection of fourteen key components of creativity through an analysis of a corpus of academic papers on the topic. Words are identified which appear significantly often in connection with discussions of the concept. Using a measure of lexical similarity to help cluster these words, a number of distinct themes emerge, which collectively contribute to a comprehensive and multi-perspective model of creativity. The components provide an ontology of creativity: a set of building blocks which can be used to model creative practice in a variety of domains. The components have been employed in two case studies to evaluate the creativity of computational systems and have proven useful in articulating achievements of this work and directions for further research

The eternal divide?: history and international relations

On one level, history is used by all parts of the International Relations (IR) discipline. But lurking beneath the surface of IR’s approach to history lies a well-entrenched binary. Whereas mainstream positions use history as a means to fill in their theoretical frames (seeing history as a kind of ‘scripture’ of abstract lessons), many post-positivists reduce history to a pick-and-mix of contingent hiccups (a ‘butterfly’ of what-ifs and maybes). Interestingly enough, this binary is one reproduced throughout the social sciences. As such, there is a bigger story to the apparently ‘eternal divide’ between history and social science than first meets the eye. This article uses the various ways in which history is used — and abused — in IR to probe more deeply into the relationship between history and social science as a whole. This exploration reveals four frameworks, two drawn from history (context and narrative) and two drawn from social science (eventfulness and ideal-typification) which illustrate the necessary co-implication of the two enterprises. The article employs these tools as a means of re-imagining the relationship between history and social science (including IR), conceiving this as a single intellectual journey in which both are permanently in view

What makes workers happy?

<p>This article answers the question what makes workers happy? It does so by combining insights from micro-economics, sociology and psychology. Basis is the standard utility function of a worker that includes income and hours of work and is elaborated with job characteristics. In this way it is possible to answer whether part-time workers are happier than full-time workers. The utility function is estimated on basis of the European Social Survey 2004 which contains all necessary information. The results show that workers optimize income and hours of work as predicted by micro-economics, but also that part-time workers are happier than full-time workers. Challenging work with a high level of autonomy makes the workers happy, work pressure makes workers unhappy. Higher educated workers are unhappier than lower educated workers, we find a negative effect of education, but this is compensated by the type of jobs these higher educated hold.</p>

Business visits, knowledge diffusion and productivity

The aim of this paper is to investigate the productivity impact of business visits, relative to traditional drivers of productivity enhancement, namely capital formation and R&D. To carry out the analysis, we combine unique and novel data on business visits sourced from the U.S. National Business Travel Association with OECD data on R&D and capital formation. The resulting unbalanced panel covers on average 16 sectors per year in 10 countries during the period 1998-2011 (2,262 observations). Our results suggest that mobility through business visits is an effective mechanism to improve productivity. The estimated effect is about half as large as investing in R&D, supporting viewing business visits as a form of long-term investment rather than pure consumption expenditure. In a nutshell, our outcomes support the need to recognize the private and social value of business mobility