Dear Colleagues,

Why should my claim that research on creativity is a cul-de-sac in design
have caused such concern? To some extent, I'm genuinely perplexed. After
all, it is the job of researchers and teachers to identify both productive
and unproductive lines of inquiry and offer opinions on such matters. As a
designer and researcher interested in improving the quality of designing
(for base or less base motives) I happen to think that research on
creativity is a cul-de-sac. So what's the big deal? Why all this passion?

Is it just my manner, my irreverence, my dismissive cryptic allusions? Am I
perhaps an impostor with no legitimate claim to attention in such a
discussion? I may be all of those things, and worse. Certainly, these and
many other 'spots of commonness' in my character, methods, and manner have
been suggested to me on and off line by list members. It has even been
suggested that I leave the list because I found one opinion 'bleak' and
suggested that if that view was widespread on this list, then the list was a
bleak place.

I cannot believe that I deserve such attention, even if my perfidious black
soul is repugnant to list members. 'Ignore the bastard, and he'll go away!',
would be my reaction, but then perhaps I'm the last person whose reaction is
worth considering. But instead of being ignored, a senior list member
unleashes 7,399 words to dismiss me and my crackpot ideas, and to
demonstrate to anyone prepared to read it, that I am ignorant, and possibly
worse.

I'm fascinated that for all the talk on this list of open-ended discussion
and inquiry, no one has asked me 'WHY?', why do I hold such a crackpot idea?

I make no secret of the fact that I have a narrow interest, much much
narrower than the free-ranging interests that characterise many
contributions to this list. But among the 900 people on this list, I think
there may be just a few who share my interest in improving the way we design
things and see some types of research, though not all, contributing to that
enterprise.

I happen to think that discussing the criteria around which one makes
decisions about what research is or is not useful in this narrow enterprise
is interesting and important. That I think creativity research is a
cul-de-sac from my narrow point of view, seems to me a minor issue. Far more
interesting to me is WHY and how the criteria I apply to making that
decision may be relevant to making similar decisions about other fields of
scholarship.

If I were a medical practitioner (and Dick Buchanan has recently reminded us
that there are similarities between medical practice and design) and someone
came to me from another field of knowledge and skill and told me that I HAD
TO PAY ATTENTION to their field of interest, I would ask WHY?

"What evidence do you bring to me to suggest that I take your ideas and
point of view on board in order to do my job as a medical practitioner
better"? "

"Your research might suggest that some of what I currently do does indeed
work--it's always nice to have ones practices validated in another context--
but it hardly constitutes new knowledge. So, what is the value of the new
knowledge you claim to my practice"?

Despite the voluminous recitation on the depth and range of creativity
research, no-one has yet offered me new knowledge that will improve my
practice. The onus of proof, it seems to me, is very much on the shoulders
of those who want to make such a claim. Apart from my natural inclination to
be curious about many things, it is not my job to investigate every crackpot
idea that has been put before me. I have certain criteria of practical
judgement against which I make decisions about which research is or is not
relevant. If you want to convince me that something is worthy of my
attention, you need to both understand and apply my criteria, or at least
tell me why my criteria are wrong. But, to date, no-one has asked me or any
other designer on this list what our criteria would be and how you might
meet them.

I would be happy to discuss those criteria and, perhaps at a later moment,
discuss why I think creativity research is a cul-de-sac from my practical
point of view. But I will not be bullied either on or off list into silence.
If I'm on the wrong list, then I will happily leave. 'Good by and thanks for
all the fish etc,' but if what I have just said resonates with any other
list members interests, and they think I am raising an interesting question,
despite my many faults, then I shall stay and take part.

David

--
Professor David Sless
BA MSc FRSA
Co-Chair Information Design Association
Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
Director
Communication Research Institute of Australia
** helping people communicate with people **

PO Box 398 Hawker
ACT 2614 Australia

Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795

phone:  +61 (0)2 6259 8671
fax:    +61 (0)2 6259 8672
web:    http://www.communication.org.au