Emergent Creativity across and between Disciplines

We live in an era when creativity is no longer restricted to the domain of the so-called creative industries--an era where every industry and every field is supporting the development of creative thinking--in problem-solving, strategy, communication, invention and organisational change, to name but a few areas of focus (May, 2017). Indeed, IBM has cited that creativity is the most valued management trait for CEOs worldwide (IBM, 2010). In this Zeitgeist, practices established in the creative industries, such as Design Thinking, have been repackaged and appropriated by the big four accountancy firms to provide a useful and popular (albeit singular) approach to creative problem-solving. The question remains--if creativity is breaking beyond its traditional boundaries, where is it going and what new forms of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary creativity will emerge as a result? Most importantly, how can we foster the dissemination of creative practice across every field and discipline?\n\nWhilst creative innovation--yes the two seem to be conflated by many businesses (May, 2017)--is a commercial imperative, it is still mostly confined to specific fields, disciplines and industries. Indeed, it is still often siloed in Innovation Departments and certainly, in our universities, creative thinking and innovation is being taught within disciplines, not across and between them. As such, there is work to be done on understanding the implication of combined creative 'intelligences' that diverge across and between these industries, disciplines and fields.\n\nThis article examines the emergent practice of combined creativity across disciplines (inter-disciplinary and transdisciplinary creative practices). It reveals three practice-based research observations about the process of transdisciplinary creativity that may be useful for those conducting further study. These are described as paradoxes, as they go against expected wisdom. Indeed, the entire method described below is about encouraging creative practitioners--from across the disciplines--to travel beyond expected wisdom, using their 'uncommon' sense. The first paradox is that the naive perspective leads to novel observations--and indeed, the naive perspective may even be necessary in transdisciplinary creativity where individuals are transgressing into disciplines they don't fully understand. (Whereas conventionally, we might assume that it is mostly knowledge that will lead to discovery rather than the lack of it.) The second paradox is that 'the method cards used are not the method.' (What is attempted here is a distinction between a method--which is not always in itself creative--versus a creative process that requires the practitioner to make a conceptual leap beyond the method itself.) The third paradox states that 'it's not just what you know but who you are and how you are that helps you make the conceptual leap.' (Finally, this suggests that creativity is not just a process, but a mindset--a quality of 'being' not just 'knowing.' A notion qualified by other researchers beyond the field of transdisciplinary creativity.)

Cognitive science · Creativity · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Sociology · Creativity in Education and Neuroscience · Engineering · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology

• Posthuman Creativities

  Open Access•D Rousell, D X Harris et al.•Review of Research in Education•2022

  Add to list

• Learning for an unknown future

  R Barnett•Higher Education Research &…•2004

  Add to list