Sociologica. V.15 N.1 (2021), 1–1
ISSN 1971-8853

Re-formats: Envisioning Sociology – peer-reviewed

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/12775

Theories of Creativity: The Significance of the Insignificant. A Graphic Novel

Benjamin Schiemer — Institute of Organization Science, Johannes Kepler University, Linz (Austria) —
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2930-8098

Dr. Benjamin Schiemer MSc is a Researcher at the Institute of Organization Science at Johannes Kepler University Linz. His research interests cover organizational anthropology, ethnography, science and technology studies, and processual studies of collaborative creativity in music.

Roman Duffner — Institute of Theory and History, Anton Bruckner Private University, Linz (Austria); Institute of Organization Science, Johannes Kepler University, Linz (Austria)

Mag. L. Roman Duffner MA is a Doctoral Researcher at the Institute of Theory and History at Anton Bruckner Private University Linz and the Institute of Organization Science at Johannes Kepler University Linz. His research interests cover studies of music and society, science and technology studies and practices in creative work.

S.R. Ayers — https://www.behance.net/dysomnia/collections

S.R. Ayers is a self-taught artist that has been working in comics, illustration & animation for magazines and productions in the US, Austria & Germany for the last fifteen years. Along with printed and animated work he has also performed as the live-drawing artist for multiple music/multi-media bands, always with a socially and politically conscious direction in the storytelling. https://www.instagram.com/herr.slidetooth/

Submitted: 2020-12-23 – Revised version: 2021-03-10 – Accepted: 2021-05-04 – Published: 2021-05-26

Abstract

This graphic novel offers an insight into various theoretical approaches in creativity theory. In their search for approaches that provide the best possible explanation for how ideas come about, the main actors (scientists) of our story encounter a wide variety of allegories (in the form of superheroes) representing creativity theories on a fictitious distant planet. They end up in remote areas and finally encounter theories that, at first glance, cannot make a significant contribution to creativity. These theories are our contributions to the topics of incompleteness, temporal structuring, and trivial objects that we have developed in recent years as part of ethnographic research on creativity in music. The initial assumption that these theories have less explanatory value for the emergence of ideas turns out to be a fallacy in our story.

Keywords: Graphic Novel; Creativity Theories; Temporal Affordance; Trivial Object; Incompleteness.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Endnotes

  1. For creativity as imperative see Reckwitz, A. (2017). The Invention of Creativity: Modern Society and the Culture of the New. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Polity Press.

  2. E.g. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the Creative Class. London, UK: Routledge. And Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  3. Garud, R., Gehman, J., Kumaraswamy, A., & Tuertscher, P. (2016). From the Process of Innovation to Innovation as Process. In A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies (pp. 451–466). London, Uk: Sage Publications.

  4. Hargadon, A.B., Douglas, Y. (2001). When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476–501. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094872

  5. Masaaki, I. (1986). Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. New Yotk, USA: McGraw-Hill.

  6. Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, USA: Harper & Brothers.

  7. Pinch, T.J., & Bijker, W.E. (1987). The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, & T.J. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  8. For creativity as new and useful ideas see e.g. Amabile, T.M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 And for creativity as new and valuable ideas see e.g., Sawyer, R.K. (2006). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  9. For problems with the “standard definition of creativity” see e.g. Runco, M.A., & Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

  10. For the thin line between creative and pathological see e.g. Reckwitz, A. (2017). The Invention of Creativity: Modern society and the Culture of the New. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Polity Press. And for novel ideas without valuation are nonsensical see e.g. Sawyer, R.K. (2006). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  11. For disentangling the new from “improvement” see e.g., Hutter, M., & Farías, I. (2017). Sourcing Newness: Ways of Inducing Indeterminacy. Journal of Cultural Economy, 10(5), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2017.1326969

  12. For the role of aesthetic practices as part of the „creativity imperative" in the late modernity see Reckwitz, A. (2017). The Invention of Creativity: Modern Society and the Culture of the New. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Polity Press.

  13. For radical and incremental innovation see Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P., & O’keefe, R.D. (1984). Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical versus Incremental Innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.6.682

  14. Reckwitz, A. (2017). The Invention of Creativity: Modern Society and the Culture of the New. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Polity Press.

  15. Amabile, T.M. (1993). Motivational Synergy: Toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-S

  16. Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2010). Structural Folds: Generative Disruption in Overlapping Groups. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1150–1190. https://doi.org/10.1086/649497

  17. Runco, M.A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929

  18. Koestler, A. (1964). The Act of Creation. London, UK: Arkana Penguin.

  19. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and Creativity. Namta Journal, 22(2), 60–97. doi: EJ547968.

  20. Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and Creativity: From Dualism to Duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739–758. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1044

  21. See Ortmann, G., & Sydow, J. (2018). Dancing in Chains: Creative Practices in/of Organizations. Organization Studies, 39(7), 899–921. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840617717096 and Rosso, B.D. (2014). Creativity and Constraints: Exploring the Role of Constraints in the Creative Processes of Research and Development Teams. Organization Studies, 35(4), 551–585. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840613517600

  22. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Cambrudge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  23. Hargadon, A.B., & Bechky, B.A. (2006). When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0200

  24. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00502.x

  25. Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2011). Complexity Arrangements for Sustained Innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies, 32(6), 737–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611410810

  26. Harvey, S., & Kou, C.Y. (2013). Collective Engagement in Creative Tasks: The Role of Evaluation in the Creative Process in Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 346–386. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0001839213498591

  27. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and Creativity. Namta Journal, 22(2), 60–97. doi: EJ547968.

  28. Cohendet, P., Llerena, P., & Simon, L. (2010). The Innovative Firm: Nexus of Communities and cCreativity. Revue d’économie industrielle, 129–130, 139–170. https://doi.org/10.4000/rei.4149

  29. Lingo, E.L., & O’Mahony, S. (2010). Nexus Work: Brokerage on Creative Projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 47–81. https://doi.org/10.2189%2Fasqu.2010.55.1.47

  30. Burt, R.S. (2002). The Social Capital of Structural Holes. The New Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field, 148(90), 122.

  31. Perry-Smith, J.E. (2014). Social Network Ties beyond Nonredundancy: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Knowledge Content and Tie Strength on Creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 831–846. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0036385 Or Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

  32. Glăveanu, V.P. (2012). What Can Be Done with an Egg? Creativity, Material Objects, and the Theory of Affordances. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.13

  33. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2005). Objectual Practice. In K. Knorr-Cetina, T.R. Schatzki, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 175–188).New York, USA: Routledge.

  34. Schiemer, B., Schüßler, E., & Grabher, G. (2019). Collaborative Innovation Online: Entanglements of the Making of Content, Skills, and Community on a Songwriting Platform. In J. Sydow, & H. Berends (Eds.), Managing Inter-organizational Collaborations: Process Views, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 64 (pp. 293–316). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000064018

  35. Schiemer, B. (2021). It’s About What Happens in the Meantime. Temporal Affordances in Creative Work. Under Review.

  36. Duffner, L.R. (2020). Push Button. In T. Beyes, R. Holt, & C. Pias, (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Media, Technology, and Organization Studies (pp. 356–367). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198809913.013.49