Epistemic insights: Contemplating tensions between policy influences and creativity in school science

Creativity and the way it could be supported in schools is understood differently by policy makers, practitioners and scientists. This article reviews, with a chronological lens, the development of policies that include teaching creativity and teaching for creativity. The epistemic tensions between the intentions of government and the nature of creativity as it emerges in learning or scientific work is introduced and reflected upon. There have been more than nine key educational policies that have been introduced over the last 50 years. Each of these are considered in this article and related to the ways that creativity is understood and expected to be taught, supported or enacted in schools by policy makers. In light of the need to support creativity as a key twenty‐first‐century skill, to ultimately enable current students (who will become the next generation of scientists) to develop the capabilities to address global concerns, this article highlights issues related to this issue. Epistemic insights are offered that relate to the development of aspects of creativity, including questioning, developing alternate ideas, ‘seeing’ things differently, innovation, curiosity, problem solving and evaluating. The ways that policy related to creativity in science appears not to recognise how creativity can be reified in these ways in schools suggests the need for rapid review, especially in light of the upcoming international creativity tests in 2021

Back to the past: the individual and its role in creativity in organisations

O objetivo deste texto é realçar o papel do indivíduo na criatividade nas organizações. Esse papel tem sido estranhamente remetido para um plano secundário, à medida que as modernas visões da criatividade a definem, sobretudo, com relação ao contexto em que ocorre. De fato, na perspectiva atual, a criatividade não pode ser entendida sem se considerarem os contextos funcional, relacional e organizacional nos quais está inserido o trabalhador. Tais são as considerações da maior parte dos autores que escreve sobre o tópico, como sejam Amabile (1996), Csikszentmihalyi (1996), ou, mais recentemente, Glăveanu (2010a, 2010b). Essa corrente dominante, com origem no interacionismo psico-social, tem ainda influenciado o desenvolvimento teórico de outros conceitos em psicologia, sociologia, e, na sequência, nas ciências sociais e humanas, e na gestão. Essa supremacia no que concerne a criatividade, tem conduzido os autores a olvidar o papel do indivíduo no processo e no resultado criativos, chegando a retirar-lhe a responsabilidade e o protagonismo pela geração e produção de ideias. Desse modo, no presente texto, recuperam-se os argumentos em favor da centralidade da pessoa na criatividade, defendendo-se que esta tem uma existência isolada de influências externas, e que, como tal, devem relembrar-se as bases individuais da criatividadeThe goal of the current text is to highlight the role of the individual in creativity in organisations. This role has been strangely disregarded in recent years, as modern accounts of creativity have been emphasising the idea that creativity is only defined in context. This main stream argues that creativity is a process that essentially occurs within a functional, relational, and organisational context in which workers are inserted. Key authors defending such a position include the likes of Amabile (1996), Csikszentmihalyi (1996), and, more recently, Glăveanu (2010a, 2010b). This is a vision rooted in the psychosocial interactionist perspective, which has also had a considerable impact in other areas in psychology, sociology, management and other social and human sciences. This supremacy, with regards to creativity, has led many to forget the role of the individual person in the creative process and output, removing their responsibility and protagonism for generating and producing ideas. Hence, the current text intends to bring back to discussion the individual bases of creativity, that people can have an existence isolated from external influences, further defending that the concept can and should be defined out of context, rather than in contextinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Paradoxes of creativity : examining the creative process through an antenarrative lens

Accounts of the creative process tend to be retrospective and implicitly ground the creative act within the person, the mind, the moment, the idea; in doing so, they often miss the larger sociomaterial qualities that can provide us with important insights about the social relationality and playfulness of the creative process. In this article, we examine the creative process through an antenarrative lens that we consider very useful for theorizing the creative process from a cultural and sociomaterial perspective. More specifically, we argue that ‘having an idea’ is a contextualized and embodied process that can be regarded as an antenarrative of the overall creative process. We also discuss how the paradoxical relation between the formative and sudden manifestations of the creative act can be understood through the notion of play

Mobilities and human possibility

This book brings together mobilities and possibility studies by arguing that the possible emerges in our experience in and through acts of movement : physical, social and symbolic. The basic premise that mobility begets possibility is supported with evidence covering a wide range of geographic and temporal scales. First, in relation to the evolution of our species and the considerable impact of mobility on the emergence and spread of prehistoric innovations; second, considering the circulation of people, things and creative ideas throughout history; third, in view of migrations that define an individual life course and its numerous (im)possibilities; and fourth, in the ‘inner’, psychological movements specific for our wandering – and wondering – minds.This is not, however, a romantic account of how more mobility is always better or leads to increased creativity and innovation. After all, movement can fail in opening up new possibilities, and innovations can cause harm or reduce our agency. And yet, at an ontological level, the fact remains that it is only by moving from one position to another that we develop novel perspectives on the world and find alternative ways of acting and being. At this foundational level, mobilities engender possibilities and the latter, in turn, fuel new mobilities. This interplay, examined throughout the book, should be of interest for researchers and practitioners working on mobility, migration, creativity, innovation, cultural diffusion, life course approaches and, more generally, on the possibilities embedded in mobile lives

How are we creative together?: comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural answers

The present article aims to distinguish between a sociocognitive and a sociocultural approach to forms of “collective” creativity. While the first is well-illustrated by studies of group or team creativity, the second has generally supported investigations of collaborative creativity, most of them performed in the last few decades. The comparison between these two fields takes different levels into account, from the epistemological position adopted to issues concerning the theories and methods used. Special attention is given to reviewing models of creativity. However, although the literature on group creativity contains several cognitive models, there is a scarcity of such constructions for collaborative creativity. This is why a secondary aim of this material is to introduce a sociocultural theoretical framework and discuss its implications for developing situated models of creativity. In the end, the similarities and differences between the two paradigms are examined with reference to both theory and research and arguments are given for why it would be beneficial for sociocognitivists and socioculturalists to engage in a more consistent dialogue

Creativity and outdoor education in primary schools: a review of the literature

The purpose of this paper is to examine the connections between creativity and outdoor education in primary schools by reviewing the studies published over the past ten years in order to build a framework for this emerging field of research. We reported a scoping review of 55 pieces of educational research and professional literature relating to creativity, outdoor education and primary school (R1 group), outdoor education and primary school (R1a), and creativity and primary school (R1b). The search highlighted the importance of the following factors in supporting possible links amongst the reviewed topics: similarities in contextual features, use of materials, need for perseverance, the role of explorative approach, the importance of play and “slow time”, the role of adults, and the value of the theory of affordances. In particular, the latter had potential to build a theoretical framework within both of the topics. Potential implications and future directions are also proposed.El objetivo de este artículo es analizar las conexiones entre la creatividad y la educación al aire libre en las escuelas de educación primaria mediante la revisión de los estudios publicados durante los últimos diez años con el fin de construir un marco para este campo de investigación emergente. Presentamos una revisión de 55 trabajos de investigación educativa y literatura profesional relacionados con la creatividad, la educación al aire libre y la educación primaria (grupo R1), la educación al aire libre y la educación primaria (R1a) y la creatividad y la educación primaria (R1b). La búsqueda destacó la importancia de los siguientes factores para respaldar los posibles vínculos entre los temas revisados: similitudes en las características contextuales, uso de materiales, necesidad de perseverancia, el papel del enfoque exploratorio, la importancia del juego y el "tiempo lento", el papel de los adultos y el valor de la teoría de la percepción. En particular, este último tenía potencial para construir un marco teórico dentro de ambos temas. También se proponen posibles implicaciones y direcciones futuras

Creativity in context: the ecology of creativity evaluations and practices in an artistic craft

The present article reports a study on the use of a multiple feedback methodology for creativity evaluation in the case of Romanian Easter eggs. Four groups of evaluators —i.e. ethnographers, priests, art teachers and folk artists—all members of professional communities relevant for this particular folk art participated in the study. They almost unanimously appreciated ‘traditional’ wax decorated eggs as highly creative for their designs, aesthetics and the hard work and talent they require but opinions diverged when commenting on the creativity of other types of Easter eggs. At a more general level, two broad evaluation patters were found, corresponding to whether respondents participate or not in decoration practices. Identifying these patterns comes to reinforce the idea that creativity evaluations, as well as creative activity, are rooted in the social and cultural contexts of the participants and these contexts share important similarities but also marked differences

Creating creativity: reflections from fieldwork

The present article addresses the question of ‘When can we say something is creative?’ and, in answering it, takes a critical stand towards past and present scientific definitions of creativity. It challenges an implicit assumption in much psychological theory and research that creativity exists as an ‘objective’ feature of persons or products, universally recognised and independent of social agreement and cultural systems of norms and beliefs. Focusing on everyday life creative outcomes, the article includes both theoretical accounts and empirical examples from a research exploring creativity evaluations in the context of folk art. In the end, a multi-layered perspective of creativity assessment emerges, integrating dimensions such as newness and originality, value and usefulness, subjective reception and cultural reception of creative products. Implications for how we understand and study creativity are discussed