Session Information
32 SES 05, Ethnography and Mixed Methods on Organizations and Organizational Learning
Paper Session
Contribution
Creativity and innovations are seen essential for organisations and individuals in contemporary work environment. Creativity can be seen as a seed of all innovation (Sarooghi, Libaers & Burkemper 2015). In addition, creativity has – from time to time – been seen as a catch-all-remedy for numerous economic issues. However, there is only limited understanding of creativity (Rosso 2014). While creativity is evidently important – especially when it is understood through changes, transformations and development in our lives – it has in most cases become a-too-big-thing and a-too-complex-phenomenon. Complex formulations of creativity subsume both creative and non-creative properties and we are basically left with only the-tip-of-the-iceberg to examine. There is a need to go beneath the surface and make the real submerged creativity visible. Creativity is small moments containing from ideas and insights subsumed in complex modalities of creativity containing also non-creative aspects.
Creativity as a multifaceted concept is commonly identified through novelty and value evaluation of either behaviour or outcome (Anderson et al. 2014, Cropley & Kaufman 2013, Montag et al. 2012, Simonton 2012, 2013). Simonton (2012) claims that most things connected with creativity connect actually with the implementation (i.e. applying creative idea or insight) process. However, there is some level of creativity in everything (Boden 2004) and creativity is possible for all (Robinson 1999). In addition, Richards (2007, 2010) claims that everyday (i.e. low-level) creativity is overlooked, possibly due the high emphasis placed on eminent and recognised (i.e. high-level) creativity. While high modalities of creativity (i.e. historical field level creativity) are obviously important (see Csikszentmihalyi 1996) and there is a sound reason to discriminate between incremental and radical creativity (see Gilson & Madjar 2011, Madjar, Greenberg & Chen 2011) these can be seen as a complex creativity. Thus, while creativity has been seen as a cyclic or recursive process with multiple phases (Anderson et al. 2014, Paulus & Korde 2013, Runco 2014), and widely accepted, theories such as componential model of creativity (Amibale 2012, 1996), interactionist model of creative behaviour (Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin 1993) or systems perspective of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1996, 1997) address creativity as a complex web of antecedents and requirements, and it might be beneficial to address creativity through a parsimonious view of creativity (Runco 2015).
Parsimonious view of creativity addresses the bare minimum of creativity, subsumed in all more complex modalities of creativity, and thus it might be fruitful – in contrast to discrepancies, misunderstandings and colliding conceptualisations of creativity – to investigate creativity through this view. For example freedom or degrees of freedom are commonly connected with supporting creativity, but can also be seen as a inhibiting factor, and creativity actually as rising from gray everyday normal office life (Bilton 2014). We should more explicitly examine the small creative moments subsumed in more complex formulations of creativity to understand the fundamental nature of the phenomenon. Innovation, as a mere novelty, can be both positive and negative (Bilton 2014). As an organisational and higher level novelty contains also risks, not only positive possibilities. Similarly, creativity as an individual sharing original, unconventional or somewhat new idea or insight, is a risk (Runco 2015).
Research questions are as follows: 1) How are the small creative moments manifested along everyday practices and processes of ordinary employees in a changing work organisation? 2) How does the small creative moments connect with complex modalities of creativity within the organisation?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
ANDERSON, N., POTOCNIK, K. and ZHOU, J., 2014. Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), pp. 1297-1333. ANGROSINO, M.V., 2008. Recontextualizing Observation: Ethnography, Pedagogy, and the Prospects for a Progressive Political Agenda. In: N.K. DENZIN and Y.S. LINCOLN, eds, Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. 3 edn. Thousand Oaks, Calif : Sage Publications, pp. 161. BEACH, D., 2005. From Fieldwork to Theory and Representation in Ethnography. In: G. TROMAN, B. JEFFREY and G. WALFORD, eds, Methodological Issues and Practices in Ethnography (Studies in Educational Ethnography, Volume 11). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 1-18. BILTON, C., 2015. Uncreativity: the shadow side of creativity. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(2), pp. 153-167. CROPLEY, D.H. and KAUFMAN, J.C., 2013. Rating the creativity of products. In: K. THOMAS and J. CHAN, eds, Handbook of research on creativity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd., pp. 196-211. DAVIES, C.A., 2008. Reflexive ethnography :: a guide to researching selves and others. 2 edn. London : Routledge,. GILSON, L.L. and MADJAR, N., 2011. Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), pp. 21-28. MADJAR, N., GREENBERG, E. and CHEN, Z., 2011. Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), pp. 730-743. MOERAN, B., 2006. Ethnography at Work. Oxford, GBR: Berg Publishers. MONTAG, T., MAERTZ, C.P. and BAER, M., 2012. A Critical Analysis of the Workplace Creativity Criterion Space. Journal of Management, 38(4), pp. 1362-1386. RICHARDS, R., 2010. Everyday Creativity: Process and Way of Life - Four Key Issues. In: J.C. KAUFMAN and R.J. STERNBERG, eds, Cambridge handbooks in psychology.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189-215. RICHARDS, R., 2007. Everyday Creativity and the Arts. World Futures, 63(7), pp. 500-525. ROBINSON, K., 1999. Culture, creativity and the young: developing public policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. RUNCO, M.A., 2015. Meta-Creativity: Being Creative About Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(3), pp. 295-298. RUNCO, M.A., 2014. "Big C, Little c" Creativity as a False Dichotomy: Reality is not Categorical. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), pp. 131-132. SIMONTON, D.K., 2013. What is a creative idea? Little-c versus Big-C creativity. In: K. THOMAS and J. CHAN, eds, Handbook of research on creativity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd., pp. 69-83. SIMONTON, D.K., 2012b. Taking the U.S. Patent Office Criteria Seriously: A Quantitative Three-Criterion Creativity Definition and Its Implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), pp. 97-106
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.