overall, it was thought.5.
Untried Alternatives Models of Creating---
Myths about creating exist to the level of wide-spread superstitions. In analogy to tennis players“choking” when conscious of how they now play, creators and designers report “choking” (sudden inability to create) when made aware of howthey create. This works to make creators unaware of alternatives to how they design or create and perhaps, by that, weakening creativeoutcomes. In some fields, a strong mythic belief that conscious modeling or exploration of any sort will undermine, weaken, or destroycreativity causes practitioners to trust intuition exclusively, trying one element in a new domain that is taken as somewhat creative, whilecompetitors explore the same new domain consciously and thoroughly, attaining much higher levels of creativity.The above dysfunctions caused by splintering of creativity practice and study make one wonder what forces drive both practitioners and theorists intofocus on one or a few creativity models.
The Costs of Single Right-y Models of Creativity
Einstein in a way, by being chosen as Scientist of the Century by many magazines, fostered indirectly an emphasis on single right-y models. Hisrelativity theory predicted such large scale and tiny scale unimagined phenomena, counter to human intuitions, that amazement was the primaryimage of “a creative theory” for most of us. That was a hard standard to meet. Physics when Einstein entered it, was locked into 200 year oldtheories unable to account for 100 years of contradictory experiment results. Maxwell had written, in 1882: anyone who takes the speed of lightseriously as a speed limit in the universe will change everything in physics, and that Einstein did.Journal editors, in their own way, foster and amplify the emphasis on single right-y Einstein-ian models. They seek models that affect other modelswith a hope that one model, one day, will be found that explains all phenomena in their field.However, when a few models, that, fully validated and proven reliable, have been pro-offered for creativity, in the past, were robustly and sincerelyapplied by very competent private sector organizations, often as not, the results were not very creative at all. This may be due to the greatabstraction and generality of the variables in any model that purports to explain all varieties of creativity. To get that breadth you have to go deeplyabstract, making variables found, too general to be much use for practice. It is much like telling parents---love and care---for your children---thatmodel is probably right but not much use in practical reality. As soon, however, as we give up the game of seeking One Right-y Model to worship asa winner, and allow ourselves to use plural differing models of creativity, things become both interesting and practical in a hurry.
Plural Models of Phenomena in the History of Science
Remember those centuries (Eamon 1996)---the Age of Exploration---where Europeans traipsed all over the world collecting species of butterfly, rocksamples, tribal artifacts, fossils, geologic strata formations, and much else? Those collections, museum-ed, allowed later scholars to examine thevariety there, cataloging it. The result was categorical models. Still later scholars looked for single models able to explain all those categories, thatis, all that collected variety of phenomena in a field.Modern journal editors do not relish categorical models (and big ones do not fit in journal article size limits). As a result, without measuring fully thevariety there, we offer theories for fragments of it, omitting huge even majority portions of a field. Skipping from topic to causal model withoutthorough specific complete categorizations of phenomena in a field, is not good science and it may partly explain why fully validated and reliablemodels of things like creativity, today, show little power, when applied.
Where to Get Plural Models of Creativity---from Theory or Practice?
Expert systems software people in the 1980s building expert design systems (Girrantano 2004), deeply modeled design processes in dozens of diverse design types and areas, using a method for making tacit mental processes explicit called Protocol Analysis (Ericcson and Simon 1993).Later in the 1980s total quality people went around the world building models of how business processes actually were done, flaws and all, as part of total quality programs (Laguna and Marklund 2004). That work included models of design shops and processes. Still later, in the mid-1990ssoftware people went around and re-engineered those total quality processes of work (Hammar and Champy 2003). Protocol analysis, qualitymodeling of processes, and process re-engineering are three detailed methods for making tacit creativity or design processes explicit and vice versamaking explicit ones tacit. This constitutes a huge untapped empirical dataset and set of methods on modeling within the mind and without the mindprocesses of each Novelty Science.This suggests usual academic surveys might, enhanced by these 3 methods, collect accurate comprehensive data on models of designing, creating,innovating, performing, in practitioners of any of the Novelty Sciences.Of course the theory of each Novelty Science is there too, ready for use. We have multiple models of creativity, by various theorists and multiplemodels of design (one consultant publishes 100+ design models on his web site pages). To read, review, and use them all, all we have to do is findand collect and excerpt and arrange hundreds of books and journal articles---
done for the most part. Hardly anyone collectsand uses the various academic models published and there is, in journals, very little interaction between the different models. Science is notcumulative in this area for the most part. One creativity scholar, Simonton (Simonton 1999), in his own campaign, worked to get other scholars tointeract and argue with his model that blind random variation causes human creativity, with in the mind neuronal such blind random variation in ideas.He had some limited success but only for a year or so.For efficiency purposes one might build a model of creativity models from practitioners and from theorists and assimilate the weaker more partial listto the stronger more complete list.
Excellence Sciences versus Novelty Sciences versus Creativity Models versus Comprehensive Creativity Models---4Layers 4 Size Scales
We can, as a thought experiment, consider redo-ing Plato by asking eminent people in diverse fields in many nations who is best in their field andhow they rose to the top (Plato's “the good” empirically defined as what makes for “excellence” in all fields). Then we can contact such top people,in many fields and nations, directly about what capabilities they used to achieve top ranking in their field. One such study found 54 distinct routes toexcellence, and many of the 54 were what we might call Novelty Sciences: creating, designing, innovating, inventing, composing, performing,designing selves, designing careers, designing cultures, and others.We can, as a thought experiment, consider how today a distinct set of people around the world study design, others study creativity, others studybusiness venturing, others study art, others study invention, others study innovation, and they do not interact in journals, in conferences, inbusinesses, in academia all that much. As a result it is not hard to find excellent technologies “supporting” not so great models of creativity;wonderful models of all the parts of design processes except where the new stuff comes from in design; innovation procedures laid out wonderfullyexcept for vagueness about where novelty comes into play. Moreover, if you want to study all the Novelty Sciences together, and how they inter-relate, colleges and schools, corporations and publications, do not make it easy for you. What would we learn if we studied all the Novelty Sciencestogether, their inter-relations, how doing one helped or hindered doing others? Consider the role of creativity inside innovation, the role of creativityinside design, the role of design in innovating, the role of design in creating?We can, as a thought experiment, consider what each creator or designer or innovator in the world does in order to usher the new into his or her