Hi All,

After my long wait at Cologne Airport, I finally got back to London,  
but the hard drive on my laptop overheated (I think) and collapsed. I  
have a techo trying to retrieve the files from it, but in the meantime  
I am without my files, amongst which are some comments I made on the  
concept of creativity on this list a few years ago.

All of the above is to suggest that those of you with an interest in  
this area my care to go back into the phd design archive and dig out  
the posts on that earlier debate. As I recall, Ken tried to sit on me  
from a great height because I dared to suggest that research on  
creativity was a culdesac that was not worth going down. I still hold  
that view, but it might help some of the PhD students on the list if  
the issue of creativity is seen in a more ecumenical light.

There are at least two starting points for research on creativity  
(probably many more, but two will do for the moment.)

In the first, researchers start from the proposition that creativity  
is something that exists. The job of research then is to establish  
exactly what it is, what gives rise to it, what nurtures it, what  
destroys it, and so on. I take Charles Burnette to be starting from  
that position.

The second starting position is to suggest that 'creativity' is a  
social construct, something we can talk about, with a history of  
conversations traceable through the many texts on the subject. The  
task of research then is to investigate the history of the idea: the  
many ways, over time, that we have articulated ideas about creativity,  
and the social contexts in which we have done so. I take Amanda Bill  
as starting from that position. These two positions are not mutually  
exclusive but they do lead in different directions and give priority  
to different questions. At certain points these differing starting  
positions have nothing to say to each other.

And there are strongly and weakly held positions within each starting  
point. Charles adopts a strong position on one side and Cameron adopts  
a strong position on the other, with Amanda and Ken seeming to take a  
middle position, suggesting in part that the way through is a  
redefinition of the concept and potentially where we might look to  
find the 'real' nature of creativity, or at least a more acceptable  
basis for moving forwards.

I stick to my outsider view that there is little point to any research  
in the field. But that's a whole other debate.

David
-- 

blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au