Does Being Bored Make Us More Creative?

Boredom has traditionally been associated with a range of negative outcomes, both within the workplace and outside it. More recently, however, it has been suggested that boredom can have positive outcomes, one of which might be increased creativity. This study addressed this proposition by examining the relationship between boredom and creative potential on a range of tasks. Two studies were carried out; the first involved 80 participants taking part in either a boring writing activity or not (control group) followed by a creative task. The second study involved a further 90 participants who varied in the type of boring activity they undertook (either a boring written activity, a boring reading activity or control) and the type of creative task that followed. Results suggested that boring activities resulted in increased creativity and that boring reading activities lead to more creativity in some circumstances (such as convergent tasks) than boring written activities. The role of daydreaming as a mediator between boredom and creativity is discussed and implications are outline

Innovation for an inclusive future

This workshop will focus on setting the agenda for research, practice and policy in support of inclusive design for third generation computer-based products. The next generation of technology represents an unprecedented opportunity to improve the quality of life for groups of users who have previously faced exclusion, such as those with impairments and older citizens. At the same time it risks creating a greater digital divide and further exclusion. How we approach design for this new generation will determine whether or not the third wave will provide positive advances towards an inclusive digital world. We therefore need to put forward both a rationale for inclusive design and provide pointers towards technical development and design practice in support of inclusion. It is our belief that there is not only a strong moral case for design for inclusion but also significant commercial incentive, which may be key to persuading influential players to focus on inclusion. Therefore one of our key objectives is to describe and promote the advantages of designing ‘in from the edges’ of the user population rather than designing for a notional ‘average’ user

A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study

Abstract Background This paper has its origins in Jonathan Mann's insight that the experience of dignity may explain the reciprocal relationships between health and human rights. It follows his call for a taxonomy of dignity: "a coherent vocabulary and framework to characterize dignity." Methods Grounded theory procedures were use to analyze literature pertaining to dignity and to conduct and analyze 64 semi-structured interviews with persons marginalized by their health or social status, individuals who provide health or social services to these populations, and people working in the field of health and human rights. Results The taxonomy presented identifies two main forms of dignity–human dignity and social dignity–and describes several elements of these forms, including the social processes that violate or promote them, the conditions under which such violations and promotions occur, the objects of violation and promotion, and the consequences of dignity violation. Together, these forms and elements point to a theory of dignity as a quality of individuals and collectives that is constituted through interaction and interpretation and structured by conditions pertaining to actors, relationships, settings, and the broader social order. Conclusion The taxonomy has several implications for work in health and human rights. It suggests a map to possible points of intervention and provides a language in which to talk about dignity

Racism and hate speech – A critique of Scanlon’s Contractual Theory

The First Amendment is an important value in American liberal polity. Under this value, racism, hate speech and offensive speech are protected speech. This article scrutinizes one of the clear representatives of the American liberal polity - Thomas Scanlon. The paper tracks the developments in his theory over the years. It is argued that Scanlon’s arguments downplay tangible harm that speech might inflict on its target victim audience. Scanlon’s distinction between participant interests, audience interests, and the interests of bystanders is put under close scrutiny. The article criticizes viewpoint neutrality and suggests a balancing approach, further arguing that democracy is required to develop protective mechanisms against harm-facilitating speech as well as profound offences. Both should be taken most seriously