A computational framework for design is presented to show that certain social structures can determine how novel solutions are created and spread. This paper suggests that creativity transcends the individual inasmuch as situational factors such as the role of gatekeepers can determine who is considered creative in a society.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
von StammB., Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity, Wiley, Chichester, 2003.
2.
SchumpeterJ.A., Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1939.
3.
SawyerR.K., Creativity and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.
4.
RuncoM.A. and PritzkerS., Encyclopedia of Creativity, Academic Press, San Diego, 1999.
5.
Lemelson-MIT Program and National Science Foundation, Invention: Cambridge, 2004.
6.
SimontonK., Creativity, American Psychologist, 2000, 55(1): Pp. 151–172.
7.
BodenM.A., Dimensions of Creativity, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994.
8.
GardnerH., The creators' patterns, in: FeldmanD.H.CsikszentmihalyiM., and GardnerH., eds. Changing the World, a Framework for the Study of Creativity, Praeger: Westport, 1994, pp. 69–85.
9.
CsikszentmihalyiM., Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity, in: SternbergR., ed. The Nature of Creativity, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1988, pp. 325–339.
10.
FeldmanD.H.CsikszentmihalyiM., and GardnerH., Changing the World: A Framework for the Study of Creativity, Praeger, Westport, CT., 1994.
11.
GilbertG.N. and DoranJ., Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena, UCL Press, London, 1994.
12.
RossL. and NisbettR.E., The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1991.
13.
MalleB.F., Conceptual structure and social functions of behavior explanations: Beyond person-situation attributions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000, 79(3): Pp. 309–326.
14.
SosaR. and GeroJ.S.. A computational framework for the study of creativity and innovation in design: Effects of social ties. in GeroJS ed. Design Computing and Cognition'04, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2004, pp. 499–517.
15.
WassermanS. and FaustK., Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Structural analysis in the social sciences, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1994.
16.
GranovetterM., The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78(6): Pp. 1360–1380.
17.
MarsdenP.V. and CampbellK., Measuring tie strength, Social Forces, 1984, 63(2): Pp. 482–501.
18.
EysenckH.J., Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? – Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm, Personality and Individual Differences, 1991, 12(8): Pp. 773–790.
19.
DorfmanR., Formula for Gini coefficient, Review of Economics Statistics, 1979, 61(2): Pp. 146–149.
20.
BakP., Self-organized criticality, Physica A: Statistical and Theoretical Physics, 1990, 163(1): Pp. 403–409.
21.
StrogatzS.H., Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order, Theia, New York, 2003.
22.
NattermannP.M., Best practice does not equal best strategy, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2000, 2000(2): Pp. 38–45.
23.
GardnerH., Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity seen through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi, BasicBooks, New York, 1993.
24.
CsikszentmihalyiM., Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, HarperCollins, New York, 1997.
25.
KuhnT.S., Second thoughts on paradigms, in: SuppeF., ed. The Structure of Scientific Theories, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1974, pp. 459–482.
