should be noted that all 'social constructs' exist, either as real  
things like roads, or as conceptual things that are coming to be real  
things in some form or set of assemblages.

I think the difference is not so much ontological here, 'exists'  
versus 'constructed', as in that case constructed just merely means  
exists.   But it is how we describe the reality we are dealing with,  
i'm thinking that the 'what it is?' questions tend to be issues of  
essences and essential qualities, like aristotle defines man as a  
social being with reason, it is a definitional system highlighting  
essences.  That's fine and good if you think essences exist and are  
real properties of things apart from any interpretive faculty that  
interacts with them.  Some people accept that, and most people i'd say  
operate on some construct of that ideation of non-modality of  
essences.  Others don't, and that is where I think you would call it  
'constructed' but perhaps a better term is realism but that realism is  
predicated on a different construction of what exists.  In the latter  
case, what exists is not 'properties' of things'  but 'relations'  
amongst things.  These relations are almost always positions capable  
of being interpreted.  For instance, as umberto eco mentions in  
ancient rome... the sun was blood red, as were lemons.... as they had  
not 'natural' category of 'yellow' or 'orange', that essay is in  
Blonsky's On Signs and I don't think i'm taking too much liberty with  
my memory of it.  So in what you might call the 'constructed' system  
what we have instead are real things being perceived, which creates a  
relation between the thing, which producing signs within a system of  
signs which provide context and meaning to the sign it produces, and  
the interpreter, which is trying to fit the information in the sign,  
'the message' into his or her current fields of understanding that  
comprise their everyday life, then usually as these intepreters likely  
sign themselves, reproduce aspects of the original in a variety of  
modes of production that yield communal interpretations.   It is like  
the story that Terry Pratchett uses to make fun of a famous  
interaction that Bertrand Russell had.... two ancient people are  
sitting next to a pond and they see a turtle go 'plop' into the  
water.   the one person says to the other.... i think that is how it  
works, the the other says... what works... and the first says  
'everything', and the other says... 'everything?'', 'yes, everything  
is on the back of a turtle and the turtle holds it up'.... and upon  
consideration of the plop, both come to the consideration that the end  
of the world is going to happen sometime and it will happen with a  
resounding plop...  heh... it is turtle's all the way down Dr.  
Russell...  So with the 'constructivist' the 'reality' exists in the  
social relations also, in the metanarratives that structure and inform  
the narratives, which structure and inform our everyday lives as we  
perceive the relations amongst the world, which are real.  So what we  
have is merely the problem of how we describe relations, either as  
relations, or as properties which is really more of a question of  
epistemology and philosophy of language than anything else.  Of course  
the solutions i'd argue run the gamut from positivist to  
interpretivist and likely other spectrums also...

So what is creativity?  we have one position that assumes it is what  
might be referred to as a 'social fact' or 'brute fact' of existence  
and another that starts off with.... looking at where meaning is  
produced and referred to as creativity...  I think I agree that they  
generate different questions....


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and  
> related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of  
> David
> Sless
> Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2009 12:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Educating for Creativity
>
> 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.