Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Six Papers of Rtgreene in 2011 6nov2011 Best

Six Papers of Rtgreene in 2011 6nov2011 Best

Ratings: (0)|Views: 67 |Likes:
These are the six papers of my last year---one invited anchor article of a Springer encyclopedia, one 45 min. keynote speech for TMCE 2012 in Karlsruihe Germany, 3 completed conference presentations for ICDC2011Kobe, ICED2011Copenhagen, PIN2012Melbourne, one article submitted recently. Next year I will submit to INCOSE conferences and software/creativity conferences.
These are the six papers of my last year---one invited anchor article of a Springer encyclopedia, one 45 min. keynote speech for TMCE 2012 in Karlsruihe Germany, 3 completed conference presentations for ICDC2011Kobe, ICED2011Copenhagen, PIN2012Melbourne, one article submitted recently. Next year I will submit to INCOSE conferences and software/creativity conferences.

More info:

Categories:Topics, Art & Design
Published by: Richard Tabor Greene on Nov 06, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/06/2011

pdf

text

original

 
SIX PAPERS of 2011-12 by R. T. Greene
MULTIPLE MODELS OF CREATIVITY, Invited article for Springer's forthcoming Encyclopedia of Creativity,WHAT IF CREATIVITY WERE 60 THINGS NOT ONE? TOWARDS A GRAMMAR OF DESIGN, presented ICDC2010,GETTING TO SUSUSTAINABLE SYSTEM VIA SURVIVABLE AND IMPOSABLE ONES, presented ICED2011,NEW KINDS OF SPACE & A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THEIR FUNCTION & FUTURE, to be submitted soonDIMENSIONS OF AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF DESIGN—Design & Designers as Anti-Cultures, Design as Culture Work,presented PIN 2012 Melbourne
THE CULTURAL WORK OF INNOVATING—Getting Real about Innovation in Business,
for TMCE 2012 KarlsruheGermany
Multiple Models of Creativity
by Richard Tabor Greene:richardtgreene@alum.mit.eduand richwows@gmail.com  Professor, Design Creativity & Innovation, KEIO University, Grad School of System Design and Management, Hiyoshi, Yokohama, JapanFounder: KNOWLEDGE EPITOME Before, After, BEYOND M.B.A.s 300 Courses; WEBWOWS, Custom Invention 76 Research & 42 Design LabsMaster of NOVELTY SCIENCES, De Tao Master's Academy, Beijing, ShanghaiFounder, The NOVELTY SCIENCES SCHOOL; KEIO University Japan, DTMA ChinaSynonyms: model pluralism, meta-models, creating creativity, novelty sciences
The Idea of NOVELTY SCIENCES
This article introduces 1) the Novelty Sciences
1
(creativity, invention, innovation, design, composing, business venturing, and others), 2) the idea of multiple models of each, 3) with example multiple models (Meta-Models) of creativity and innovation, 4) and more detailed models than are usual(here a 64 item model of the most creative process known—Natural Selection). The model of creativity models that this article presents is the mostcomprehensive and detailed such model yet published, at the time of this writing. A book on 60 of the 120 models of creativity presented below, ispublished and available elsewhere (Greene 2000).In addition an entire intellectual tradition and approach, centered on developing large diverse repertories of models, and tools specially invented tosupport the development and use of such repertoires are presented in this article, with one such tool (a fractal page format)---a proposedreplacement for prose itself (prose is a very bad very old interface in need of upgrading), demonstrated on one page below (the Natural SelectionModel near this article's end).Individual designers, creators, etc. are often so used to and wedded to single particular models that have worked in the past for them, andacademics are so used to the chase for the One Right Model that all others will bow down to, that few people in practice or theory are aware of themultiple models there to be studied and applied. This article attempts to open up: 1) multiple Novelty Sciences and 2) multiple models, 3) highlydetailed, of each--- as new contexts for and frontiers for practice and theory. It also presents some severe costs to our collective mania for singleright-y models of things and some large benefits when we, instead, deploy plural diverse models of one phenomenon to improve theory or practice.Ways that existing journals, editors, professions, universities, labs push us into single model use, while not discussed in detail, are mentioned fromtime to time. Why they do so is a topic for another article. This article presents the benefits for theory and for practice of operating with pluraldiverse models of each Novelty Science, including multiple models of creativity (120 in some detail presented here) and of innovation (54 modelswith little detail here for reasons of space limitations).
The NOVELTY SCIENCES
VERSIONS OFLEVELS OF LIBERAL/SOCIAL ARTS OF
Creativity/DiscoveryEducated Persons (Created Selves)History of all 16 in 1
st
2 cols.Design/Invention Creating SelvesLiterature oInnovation Creating CareersPhilosophy oFounding Tech VenturesCreating SystemsPolitics oFashionCreating Others (Leading)Culture oEvolutionCreating CulturesDesign oComposing Stories, Games, etc. Creating QualityEconomics oPerforming/ExploringCreating KnowledgePractice o(from Greene 2011 and De Tao Master's Academy 2011)
Tools for Non-Narrow: Thinking, Professions, Academe, & Outcomes
Herbert Simon wrote that exponential increase in knowledge volume meant professions, disciplines, theories, and professional people were, relativeto the totality of that knowledge, becoming smaller and smaller fractions, with severe effects, namely, that
all 
our major problems fell in the cracksbetween our increasingly narrow persons, professionals, and disciplines (Simon 1996). Though system science was offered up as a solution(Bartanlanffry 1969), that failed. Total quality had powerful globally implemented practices, however, that address this issue well—horizontalprocesses replacing vertical ones, continuous improvement replacing home run giant innovation leaps, statistical measures of quality replacingmanagement by social class rank and opinion (Greene 1993; Lillrank & Kano 1989; Ishikawa 1991; Cole 1995, 1999 ). Lately systems engineeringhas arisen as the design of designers, the management of engineers (Maeno, Nishimura, Ohkami 2010). From the theory and practice of these“binding”-other-fields or Meta-Fields, their tools for handling plural diverse models make them tolerant of multiple simultaneous disagreeing modelsfor phenomena (Greene 2010; Nakano, 2011).Structural cognition (Zwicky 1969, Kintsch 1998, van Dijk 1997, Meyer 1982) is another Meta-Field that addresses this issue of ever narrower peopleand professions in a world where problems are wider and wider. Structural cognition measures the “cognitive list limit” of various cultures (of gender,nation, era, profession, person, age-group) finding habitual levels of detail and elaboration that everyone of a category shares, without special reasonor benefit (where should we eat tonight?---Germans average 7 alternatives, French 5, Japanese 4.4, Americans 2.8, for example). Tools for increasing the scope of what ordinary mental operations, hundreds of times per day, can be applied to, without more effort, time, or loss of quality of outcome, are devised and tested (for example: response to response matrices, stratified responding diagrams, structural reading diagrams, fractalconcept models, fractal page formats).
1The NOVELTY SCIENCES is a registered trademark of Knowledge Epitome when used commercially
 
Where ordinary science tries to find One Right Model that explains all phenomena of a certain sort; structural cognition tries to identify large diverserepertoires of models that explain all of a phenomena, with each model in each repertoire of models compensating for weaknesses and biases in theother models. In doing this, Structural Cognition sees itself as midway between Asian causality (10,000 bee stings to move an elephant; for evidence this is true see Clover, 2011) and Western causality (find the one tipping point in a system where slight inputs have huge outcomes).Developing high quality, valid, and reliable such repertoires, replaces, in structural cognition, finding single right-y models in normal reductivescience. Both aim at predictive capability---but one seeks a single model while the other seeks diverse well-balanced repertoires of models. NoteChinese medicine that outperforms Western drugs in some areas uses a repertoire of, say, 5 herbs for the same effect (say better bile flow),spreading slight side-effects so no one organ is hurt while concentrating main effects on one target (bile flow for example here)--this gets better results than achieved by single “purified” Western drugs (Single Right-y Models) that by being purified concentrate side-effects to dangerous levels(Niwa 2004)Tools invented and tested in structural cognition thus far include: structural reading diagrams, fractal concept models, response stratifications, socialautomata, scientific rules of order, causal weave diagrams, orthogonal result projections, response to response matrices, and others (Greene 2008;Greene 1998; Entwhistle 2000; Pask 1975). These allow rapid thorough versions of ordinary mental operations to be applied to the several meta-models (models of models) in this article each having 40 or more than 100 components. Though normal tools for thought may be stymied and frozenwhen facing such daunting numbers, structural cognition tools allow easy handling of these numbers by ordinary undergraduate students, so far,tested in Europe (at N. V. Philips, Thompson Electric Paris, and others), East Asia (China Japan), and at leading corporations and universities inNorth America (University of Chicago, University of Michigan, Santa Fe Institute, Coopers & Lybrand, Xerox PARC and others). Where readers of the below do find themselves somewhat daunted by the numbers and variety of items presented, keep in mind that a few minutes exposure to thestructural cognition tools in the references furnished, will alleviate such anxiety and transform it into growth in level of detail and comprehensivenessof thought and application achieved.Structural cognition tools are especially suited to crowd-source and swarm intelligence arrangements on the web. The tools invite full renditions othe variety and levels of detail of models built and edited by dispersed crowd contributors while fusing that into levels of abstraction andcategorization that define what causal models have to cover and explain.In sum, the meta-models in the rest of this paper with their great variety and numbers of models, allow:1.more comprehensive coverage of a phenomenon2.more diverse aspects of a phenomenon distinguished from each other 3.more detail handled at the same time as more comprehensiveness is achieved4.more accurate and localized diagnosis, assessment, and strategic direction done5.more adaptive alternative responses and ways to go at crisis points6.more common ground possibilities for reducing first apparent conflicts/differences.
A Creativity Theory Support of Many Diverse Detailed Creativity Models
Torrance (Torrance 1974) in his famous work to measure creativity chose three mental capabilities:1.FLUENCY---the total number of interpretable, meaningful, relevant ideas generated in response to a stimulus2.ORIGINALITY---the statistical rarity of the responses generated3.ELABORATION---the amount of detail in responses generated.We might, then, ask these three traits of our models of creativity: 1) how many models do we have and use? 2) how rare are these models? howdiverse from each other are they? 3) what is the level of detail of elaboration of each model?
Creative modeling of creativity 
, it would seem, wouldinvolve us in having 1) many 2) diverse 3) highly-detailed models, not single right-y models of great abstraction lacking detail and specificity. Thislittle exercise makes us clear that academia's aim for “rightness” of model gets in the way of “creativity” of model. Perhaps, mono-theism drifts intomono-theory-ism, culturally.
Splintering of Creativity Study and Practice
A number of common observations indicate that creativity study and practice are splintered unhelpfully by the current knowledge systems inbusiness, society, and academe (Sternberg 1998; Pritzker and Runco 1999), :1.
Splintered Creativity Publishings & Research---
Research articles published in the several top journals specialized for creativity do notreach the vast majority of people involved in creating or researching it (consider: what single journal is read—subscribed to---by mechanicalengineers, sex therapists, sculptors, nuclear physicists, bioinformatics statisticians, auto designers, graphic designers, fashion designers?).An internet experiment done in August-September 2008 (Greene 2011) found 12,000 professors in 22 academic fields with publishings directlyrelated to creativity, by emailing 200 papers a night every day for 2 months, using creativity-related conference organizing committee lists onthe web—a lot of work to reach them because creativity occurs in nearly every academic field (but journals across fields are low in status andoften do not count for academic promotion, so creativity journals do not reach
most 
of those doing and studying creativity). .2.
Great Technologies Supporting So-So Versions of Creativity---
Hundreds of studies of design are done yearly (see Taura and Nagai 2010for examples), published, but each uses different and often not well developed models of creativity as part of design work and processes(consider the huge number of articles on computer systems to support “creativity” published yearly, yet each uses a different model of whatcreativity is and most such creativity models are not nearly as professionally developed, selected, or tested as the computer technology partsof the research.3.
Unified Access to All Models of Creativity and to All Novelty Sciences is Denied---
Students and scholars and designers and inventors,when they go to colleges to study and improve their own art, find programs force them to concentrate on one or two models of creating andone or two of the Novelty Sciences---it is difficult to find a college program that exposes students to
all 
Novelty Sciences and dozens of creativity models.4.
Creators & Creative Practice Miss Easy Routes to Greater Creativity---
Creators, especially as designers, themselves were extensivelystudied world-wide in the 1980s as computer people built expert systems using artificial intelligence software to automate some of the moreroutine mental processes observed. These computer people reported unnecessary limitations to how creative design people did their work,and at times, made suggestions that improved the amount of novelty/creativity in designs and design processes. Rather than a designer doing better his/her current approach to creating, the computer people noticed, more improvement when the designer was exposed to other approaches, used by other designers but not this designer. Exposure to all the approaches to creating might improve creative performances
 
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---
not 
convenient and
not 
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 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->