You are on page 1of 11

High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 DOI 10.


Teaching for creativity: towards sustainable and replicable pedagogical practice
Erica McWilliam Æ Shane Dawson

Published online: 14 February 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This article explores the pedagogical significance of recent shifts in scholarly attention away from first generation and towards second generation understandings of creativity. First generation or big ‘C’ creativity locates the creative enterprise as a complex set of behaviours and ideas exhibited by an individual, while second generation or small ‘c’ creativity locates the creative enterprise in the processes and products of collaborative and purposeful activity. Second generation creativity is gaining importance for a number of reasons: its acknowledged significance as a driver in the new or digital economy; recent clarification of the notion of ‘creative capital’; the stated commitment of a growing number of universities to ‘more creativity’ as part of their declared vision for their staff and students; and, the recognition that the creative arts does not have a monopoly on creative capability. We argue that this shift allows more space for engaging with creativity as an outcome of pedagogical work in higher education. The article builds on the project of connecting ‘creative capital’ and university pedagogy that is already underway, assembling a number of principles from a wide range of scholarship, from computer modelling to social and cultural theorising. In doing so, it provides a framework for systematically orchestrating a ‘creativity-enhancing’ learning environment in higher education. Keywords Learning Creativity Á Pedagogy Á Higher education Á Graduate attributes Á

Introduction Of all the attributes that university academics might want to claim for their graduates, creative capability is perhaps the most elusive. How would we know if the learning
E. McWilliam (&) Á S. Dawson Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia e-mail: S. Dawson e-mail:


through performance testing. much has been done to move us on from this impasse. Their interest in creative capacity building parallels new imperatives in professional work. 20). We have seen a shift away from the type of creativity that Johnson (2007). However. Australian policymakers have understood the importance of ‘‘wrapping [themselves] … in the mantle of … creativity’’ (Macintyre 2007. a round table discussion of experts in the field—all reflect this democratising turn. p. It is even more of a stretch if the program or discipline seems generally unrelated to the creative arts. that it is ‘‘rarely an explicit objective of the learning and assessment process’’ (p. 2005. 3). As Jackson (2006b) puts it. we examine what we mean by ‘creative capital’. As a prelude to this conceptual work. 4). Australian policymakers have lagged behind the UK and Europe in their recognition of the growing importance of the creative enterprise for higher education. Evocation of ‘more creativity’ has been limited to rhetorical flourishes in policy documents and/or relegated to the borderlands of the visual and performing arts. Creative capital There is now a platform of research and scholarship that is making it possible to foster small ‘c’ creativity through sustainable and replicable pedagogical practice. and Creativity and Development (Sawyer et al. Yet also notes. it is quite another to assert that a student has more creative capacity as a direct result of their program of study. when taken together. p. but by creative. By contrast. significantly for this article. Simply put. and mounting evidence about the new ways that young people learn (Hartman et al. characterises as ‘‘a painful and often terrifying experience to be endured rather than relished and preferable only to not being a creator at all’’. a new wave of ‘little c’ literature (second generation thinking) focuses typically on the thinking and doing of a much greater proportion of the population than a few towering historical figures possessing ‘‘the most ferocious self-discipline’’ (Slattery 2007. Weisberg’s (1999) Creativity and Knowledge. that a student is more knowledgeable about accounting or physics or statistics.634 High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 experiences of students in a particular degree program were responsible for those students being ‘more creative’ than they were when they entered the program? While it is one thing to be able to prove. In this article. we seek to connect ‘creative capital’ and the pedagogical work of academics by assembling a number of principles that. 6). this imperative has been taken up as challenge to the mainstream culture of higher education teaching and learning. the problem is ‘‘not that creativity is absent but that it is omnipresent’’ (p. 17). Seely Brown 2006). Jonathon Feinstein’s (2006) Nature of Creative Development. in his book Creators: From Chaucer to Walt Disney. We then move to sketch out some imperatives within the higher education context that are available to be harnessed in support of a creativity-enhancing pedagogy. forward-looking individuals and groups who are not afraid to question established ideas and are able to cope with the insecurity and uncertainty that this entails (p. While 123 . In the UK in particular. A recent report issued by the European University Association (2007) has responded by directing the entire higher education sector to consider creativity as central to research and teaching: The complex questions of the future will not be solved ‘‘by the book’’. but have yet to translate this ‘high ground’ into specific pedagogical principles or strategies. 2003). may constitute a framework for systematically orchestrating a ‘creativity-enhancing’ learning environment both in Australia and elsewhere.

creative capacity—the ability to ‘‘move an idea from one state to another’’ (Jackson 2006b. architecture. and thus as an engine of economic growth and social dynamism. Pink 2005). or political influence. employers are now seeking ‘‘multi-competent graduates’’ (Yorke 2006. It is unsurprising therefore that we find a broad consensus among employers about the qualities they are seeking in graduates. Florida 2002. At its core. Howkins 2001). Seltzer and Bentley 1999). according to a recent report of the US National Centre on Education and the Economy (2007). 123 . Pink 2005). with ‘‘imagination/creativity’’ being top of the list (The Pedagogy for Employability Group 2006). Leadbeater 1999. will be engaged in work that is less focused on routine problem-solving and more focused on interactivity. 8) can be is facilitated by the development of skills and capacities that allow optimal performance in and with the complex social and cultural forms emerging as an effect of new interactive technologies. an arsenal of creative thinkers whose ideas can be turned into valuable products and services (p. Florida and Goodnight (2005) are emphatic on this point: A company’s most important asset is not raw materials. including computing. Cunningham 2002. team-based. observable and learnable. tackling novel challenges and synthesising ‘big picture’ scenarios for the purposes of adding a competitive commercial edge. and in a growing body of scholarship about creative work in digitally enhanced environments (Caves 2000.1 trillion dollars in 15 years time (Pink 2005). p. 124). and has shown it to be to render it economically valuable. Writing in Harvard Business Review. 2006. there is agreement that many of our current undergraduate students will find themselves working in digitally enhanced environments with few transportable templates for project design and implementation. Economists are now seeing creativity as a form or capital. Fundamental to all this is ‘‘a deep vein of creativity that is constantly renewing itself’’. navigation capacity. p. as potential future ‘creatives’ (Cunningham 2006. All university graduates. Thus creativity has become core business for those who seek to develop employability capacity through formal education. there is little doubt about the dollar value of creative capital. forging relationships.High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 635 Koestler’s (1964) long-standing definition of creativity as ‘‘the defeat of habit by originality’’ (p. Florida 2002. 2) who have. arts and multimedia. engineering. University graduates. In broad terms. the creative workforce now includes those employed in a wide variety of industries beyond the ‘creative industries’. Hartley 2004. ‘‘high level expertise … emphasising discovery … and … exploiting the discoveries of others through market related intelligence and the application of personal skills’’ (p. education. All this scholarship and policy development acknowledges that creativity—in the form of creative capital—has a high practical value in the enterprising workplace. transportation systems. as potential future ‘creatives’ (Cunningham 2006. It’s creative capital—simply put. According to a recent policy report in the UK. science. 96) is still highly relevant to small ‘c’ creativity. novel challenges and the synthesising of ‘big picture’ scenarios. With the ‘creative industries’ sector predicted to be worth 6. Equally importantly. recent research (see Kaufman and Sternberg 2007) has addressed the myths that creativity is only about individual genius and/or idiosyncrasy as it applies to the arts. Thus the need to develop a more creative workforce has been a familiar catch-cry in American and British public and social policy for some time now (Florida 2002. 5). will be performing work that is less focused on routine problem-solving and more focused on new social relationships. Landry 2000.

more ephemeral cultural products.g. as heavily reliant on manufacturing as Australia has been on mining for its economic growth. with an individual student’s skill development. 78. China too. This concurs broadly with the findings of a recent survey of UK National Teaching Fellows (NTF). http://www. and to render it economically valuable. The term is loosely associated with problem solving and thinking skills. which revealed that 92% (N = 90) of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the premise that developing creativity is possible (The Creativity Centre 2006). individual genius and idiosyncrasy. When the NTFs were asked to articulate their understanding of creativity. ‘contextually-based innovation inspired by responding to specific and challenging problems’) (Fryer 2006. such as graduate attributes. ‘at one extreme … great artists and scientists … At the other … ordinary people’) • context (e.g. including the pedagogical shifts concomitant with this workplace imperative. ‘ability to express an innate aspect of your psyche’) creativity as a continuum (e. Moreover. The report produced by the UK Higher Education Academy also details the perceptions of the NTFs in relation to creativity. indicates that 75%1 of Australian universities have an expressed commitment to ‘creative’ learning outcomes. 1 The analysis of 39 Australian university graduate attribute documentation was conducted on 18 December 2006.g. i. implementing and leading new things’) thinking and doing (e. pp.g. is questionable.g. What is implied is that creativity is a skill that can be developed as a result of specific implemented pedagogical practices. Korea and the UK that have for some time now recognised the importance of creative capital to their long-term economic sustainability. ‘solving ill-structured problems in ways which show initiative’) doing (e. is only belatedly scrambling to catch up with those countries like Singapore. Yet there is a conspicuous absence of definitional clarity in the policy documentation we examined. ‘developing.australian-universities. Australia is not the only country slow to the creativity table. ‘both the cerebral and the practical’) the arts (e. Reference to the ‘arts and self expression’ encompasses the forms of creativity that may be held to be less tangible. Creative ‘flockmates’ With all the definitional work being done in recent times to unhook creativity from ‘artiness’.com/list/ 123 . the extent to which Australian universities have made the necessary cultural shifts. ‘artistic version of innovative’) self-expression (e. Our recent analysis of higher education policy documents.e.g. This in turn aligns with our recent study of award-winning academic teachers’ understandings of creativity (McWilliam and Dawson 2007). the following broad categories were identified by the researchers: • • • • • • thinking (e.636 High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 Creative capacity and higher education While all this is not news to university leaders and managers. List of Australian universities generated from the Australian Education Network. It is only recently that Australian higher education policy has begun to reflect a commitment to creativity. 79) The comments made by the NTFs primarily reflect a form of creativity that is centrally and predominantly skill-focused.g. It is reasonable to conclude that both big ‘C’ and small’ c’ notions of creativity are alive and well within the academy.

in the main. that is the appropriate unit of analysis in any investigation into how creativity gets fostered. Cunningham 2006. not the individual. Significant within this scholarship is Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi’s (1999) insistence that it is the community. Jackson problematises any neat geometry for characterising the learning process as a simple teacher/student relationship. His pluralisation of the unit of analysis of creativity raises substantial issues for higher education if graduate attributes continue to be understood and measured in predominantly individualised ways. particularly experiments with computer programs to endorse the idea ‘‘simple interactions between simple agents [can] … give rise to surprisingly complex behaviour’’ (p. or that the ‘team’ has not been the flavour of the month for some time. and once rendered less mystical it can be engaged intentionally and systematically as a product of learning. So how could we characterise the dynamics of creative teams in ways that allow us to differentiate it from more ‘group work’. Seel goes on to argue that three conditions in particular—connectivity. complexity theory provides a ‘‘radical and innovative frame for professional educational practice’’ 123 . While. but less has been done on the characteristics of learning environments that optimise opportunities for students (and. However. According to Tosey (2006). In doing so. nor has the experience of being ‘in a team’ necessarily been an enjoyable one. Jackson (2006a) takes this model further. perceived as likely to ‘add value’ to the products of their learning. Much has of course been written about the importance of the team in the contemporary organisation (including critiques like Amanda Sinclair’s (1992) about the way ‘team’ is often evoked as the all-purpose solution to organisational success). 1). adapting it to make more explicit the complex interactions that are produced by interactions between and among a domain such as history teaching. Sternberg 2007). Csikszentmihalyi indicates that the creative process is much more complex. This is not to say that ‘group work’ is unfashionable. there is nevertheless much to be learned from this field of research and scholarship about what an appropriate learning environment might look like for optimising the ‘emergence’ of creative capital. What we are seeking to do is to understand how to assist our students to achieve more creative outcomes than each of them alone is able to do. Robinson 2000. diversity and rate of information flow—are derived from computer simulation research and observations of physical systems. In pursuing creativity as the product of multiple human interactions in complex environments rather than the outpourings of artistic individuals. including as it does two salient aspects of the environment (namely the culturally or symbolic order he calls the domain and the social order he understands to be the field) which themselves interact and within which humans (a third component) interact. the ambivalence of large numbers of our very capable students about doing ‘group projects’ for assessment suggest that their experiences of group work are not. even more interesting group work? Seel’s (2006) inquiry into the emergence of new patterns of behaviour and change related activity in organisations is useful as a starting point. as Seel (2006) argues. He draws on recent developments in complexity theory. there is more complexity in human engagement than in other natural systems. we are not discounting the commercial potential of individuals of genius.High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 637 observable and learnable (Byron 2007. Simonton 2000. There is ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that our students have engaged in ‘group work’ from their earliest years of formal learning and have been brought up on the importance of valuing ‘the team’. a field such as history teachers and those whom they are teaching within the particular set of social and cultural conditions that pertain to the higher education sector. It is at the intersection of these interactions that creative enterprise emerges. creativity has certainly become less mystical. indeed staff) to work as members of dynamic creative teams.

As computer simulations of flocking demonstrate (Reynolds 1987. flying higher and faster) than the capacity of any one-flock member.e.000 members. However. Some embryonic work has already been to apply these ideas to human teams at work within organisations. According to Hof (2005).e. the sort of external regulation that applies in the case of ‘flocking’ depends on the provision of timely information and the expectation of appropriate action. while at the same time generating ‘‘swarm intelligence’’. not provided by a ‘leader’ but by other members. nd) and others (e. call ‘local neighbourhoods of flockmates’. it is noteworthy that ‘enhancing’ constraints are not imposed by the leader. there are behavioural rules that certainly exist within ‘local neighbourhoods’ of ‘flockmates’ that need to be adhered to if the whole flock is to navigate optimally and avoid obstacles. The Internet has made it possible to harness such ‘‘swarm intelligence’’ more powerfully than any technology. ‘‘amazing scheduling and routing capabilities’’ that are well beyond any individual capacity. So what are the ‘rules’ at work here if they are not rules that flow from external regulation? According to Reynolds (1987. member/ external and member/colony orientation. this principle puts paid to the romantic idea that constraints will always act negatively on creativity. this is not a space of total artistic freedom—it is actively pitted against any spinning off into idiosyncratic conduct on the part of individual members. i. When applied to dynamic team environments. 31) through computer modelling of the behaviours of natural systems. Thompson (2006) argues that the only differences between human teams and some biological teams is sheer scale in terms of numbers of members. it depends on a self-managing team’s capacity in terms of: • Separation—capacity to steer to avoid crowding others • Alignment—capacity to steer towards the average heading of the local flockmates • Cohesion—capacity to steer to move towards the average position of local flockmates These deceptively simple capacities are three dimensional in terms of what they require of behaviour. This may come as something of a surprise to those who understand ‘mass collaboration’ as necessarily obliterating or subsuming individual ‘space’. in pedagogical terms. what we might. swarming mass collaborations on the 123 . Computer simulations of ‘boids’ (bird objects) tell us about the behavioural principles that allow flocks or swarms to perform with more capacity (e. that the best way for a teacher to assist creative students is just to get out of their way. nd). i. At the same time. and indeed. Indeed. i. is that team-based student ‘selfmanagement’ would function in a way that did not interfere with others. Yet a sense of collective direction is always needed.g.e. One of the myths that is exploded in engaging with this scholarship is the idea that there are no rules when it comes to creative ‘high flying’. scanning for and reporting anything ‘interesting’—it is patterned not chaotic.e.638 High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 (p. leadership changes constantly. It is interesting to consider the pedagogical implications of these rules—each flockmate is aligned with and responsive to those flockmates in their immediate vicinity. following Reynolds.g. Any ‘randomness’ involved is always systematic. with human teams rarely exceeding 50 with typical large organisations possibly involving over 10. i. that there should be no rules. He points out that humans ‘‘tend to organise themselves into smaller independently managed sub-units’’. that they are simultaneously focused on member/member. as well as appropriately separate from other flockmates. and the simple rules of interaction that allow for very complex forms of group engagement. What is implied here. Thompson 2006). This purposive activity has the effect of reducing vulnerability to individual member failure. ‘command and control’ is not the means by which constraint is enacted.

12) that is typical of an ironic or paradoxical view of the world (Rorty 1989). In Seel’s (2006) terminology. 4. out of the above. behaviours or events. This could have implications for ‘on-line’ pedagogy that insists on borderlessness as a principle of its operation. we are yet to see much evidence of teamwork in mass collaboration to date and it may be that large numbers militate against this type of collaboration. 1) to predispose our students to creative thinking and doing. 2. Connectivity with diversity—an environment in which it is important for students to be ‘plugged into’ and mindful of a ‘local neighbourhood’ and a larger world of potential team members with similar interests or passions—one that allows members to pursue their passions and to contribute to fast-moving flows of information on behalf of others and themselves. we have made scant headway in understanding what sorts of collaborations are now possible. connect and co-invent. Anderson and Franks 2004) assist by elaborating four types or ‘‘degrees’’ of collaboration in nature’s teams: 1. As Anderson points out. Pedagogical principles What seems to be emerging. This pedagogical imperative has resonances with what Richard Greene (2001) identifies as a ‘‘paradox balancing model’’ of creativity. It may be that some structure or direction is needed to enable a self-managing ‘local neighbourhood’ to form and be sustained through its capacity to share. solo work—members doing the same things at different times crowd work—members doing the same thing at the same time group work—members doing different things at different times (sequential) team work—members doing different things at the same time (concurrent) This allows us more nuanced understandings of pedagogical collaborations than simply speaking of ‘group work’ as though it were a ‘one-size-fits-all’ set of activities. The following sets of paradoxical ‘team dynamics’ are argued to be explicitly valuable and able to be fostered: 1.High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 639 Internet are shaking up orthodox business operations through enhancing their members’ capacity for: • give and take (creating shared distribution computing capacity) • finding needles in haystacks (connecting to other like minds through shared interests rather than personal relationships) • participation through passion (co-inventing w/others based on passion rather than focusing only on profit as motivation) This has real implications for pedagogical processes in higher education. While there has been much interest and investment in ICTs for learning. Research by Carl Anderson (1998. 3. in that it is characterised by the ‘‘combining of opposites’’ (p. and whether and how they might be systematically fostered in higher education teaching and learning. is a set of principles for sustaining a replicable pedagogical environment for creative learning outcomes. they underline the importance of learning environments in which apparently contrary imperatives exist for evoking optimal creative outcomes. imperatives that co-exist despite their apparent incommensurability. we have not yet understood how ecological and pedagogical factors can be ‘‘tuned’’ (p. In summary. 123 . It also directs us to think about matters of size and scale.

The products of learning are authentic productions of the synergies that exist between the individual member and the team. cultural and learning theorists about creative capacity and its connection to enterprise. that is: 5. 3. so that members can be both separate from. are more likely to be valuable to organisations seeking more creativity from the graduates they employ. ‘Enhancing’ constraints and removal of inhibitors—an environment that minimises command and control’ while providing scaffolded opportunities for members to conduct themselves in ways that optimise team (and thereby their own) performance— one in which there are. not merely what is ‘required’ by external others.e. exercising ‘three dimensional’ attention about the local and global. i. Recent scholastic moves to unhook creativity from ‘artiness’. Co-creative capacity increases exponentially when ‘flockmates’ make a habit of maintaining mental and psychic ‘space’ unhampered by the team. David Perkins argues in The Mind’s Best Work (1981) that skills like pattern recognition. the ability to cross domains. Leading and following—an environment in which all team members share collective responsibility for timely and appropriate leadership. knowledge of schema for problem-solving. Similarly. 95). It draws attention to the collective capacity to select. utilising behaviours that rely on synergies as well as necessary separation. ‘‘good constraints to action’’ (p. fluency of thought and so on. have also unhooked creative capacity building from the myth that it only happens ‘outside’ rules. and attentive to. Co-invention/co-creation with separation—an environment in which the nature. those they work with and rely on for their ‘high flying’ outcomes. in which he identified the decisive phase of creativity as the capacity to ‘‘perceive … a situation or event in two habitually incompatible associative contexts’’ (p. A fifth principle that is not connected with ‘flocking’ but is a contribution from neuroscience (Zull 2004) focuses quite specifically on human capacity. 33). This builds on understandings first made public over 50 years ago in Arthur Koestler’s The Act of Creation (1964). and responsive to the ‘local neighbourhood’. ‘High flying’ graduates who are enabled to practise and build their ‘flocking’ and swarming capacities. re-shuffle. in Tosey’s (2006) terms. They move us on from the romance of the remote artist-in-a-garret 123 . Social and organisational analysts argue that the sort of creativity that leads to innovative organisational practice is more likely to be an outcome of adaptation—the capacity of work teams to generate new re-combinations of what currently exists (see Leadbeater 1999. faculties and skills in original ways as evidence of creativity at work. are all indicators of creativity as a set of learning dispositions or cognitive habits. creation of analogies and mental models. purpose and rules of self-management are understood and internalised. while being habitually aligned with. These skills and capacities can be enhanced in our students by providing them with opportunities to engage as ‘flockmates’. looking over the horizon for relevant information for sharing with others. or synthesise already existing facts ideas. while at the same time following the ‘steering’ of those close by. 4.640 High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 2. exploration of alternatives. the present and the future. combine. The above principles mesh with much that has been written by social. Explaining less and welcoming error—an environment in which ‘command and control’ instruction is sparingly used and it is anticipated that all members will make mistakes—the aim is to learn from the instructive complications of error rather than to avoid error or attempt to disguise it. Lessig 2005)—than of ‘flash-of-inspiration’ moments or the radical invention of something out of nothing. individual genius and idiosyncrasy.

the ubiquitous culture of ‘transmission’.High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 641 for whom any and all constraints are inhibiting. by challenging the taken-for granted ‘traditional’ and ‘progressive’ understandings that are in evidence in the daily work of academic teachers. A teacher-manufactured group does not constitute a ‘local neighbourhood’. R. While ‘the freedom to fly’ is crucial in terms of imaginative input into problem-solving and innovation. The organisation of foraging in insect societies. by keeping them ‘unconnected’. but for a radical re-engagement in pedagogical work. and which values individuals over teams. & Franks. certain disciplines of mind and body are needed to ensure that creative products are not just a ‘one off’ event. 1–48. Unpublished Ph. according to recent research by Beck and Wade (2006). it imagines dynamic teams of student and staff ‘high flyers’ as the new core business of pedagogical work in the 21st century. the gamer environment is not an unregulated environment despite the fact that gamers have ‘‘systematically different ways of working … systematically different skills to learn. association or meta-group within which we fly higher and faster than we could as individual entities. The intent is not to call for more ‘progressive’ or ‘student-centred’ education. understand it and are passionate about it. It is unlikely that these elements of ‘command and control’ pedagogy will be easily relinquished by those who have been rewarded for decades for what they know and their capacity to instruct as a ‘lecturer’. across groups of gamers who all play a similar game. particularly in our own Australian higher education context. They learn how to use meta-maps or how to operate without one (p. University of Sheffield. the credentialing process. 2). or that they do not ‘crash and burn’ because of an inability to perceive and overcome obstacles. robots and humans. Anderson C. and different ways to learn them’’ (p. Advances in the Study of Behavior. The resilience of the ‘lecture’. This means focusing ‘three dimension attention’ on the ‘local neighbourhood’ of cocreators and on the ‘high flying’ organisation. and could only become so if there were the sort of synergies that occur. the hard-wiring of disciplinary boundaries.. xvi).D. Thesis. This article is an attempt to begin a ‘second generation’ conversation about how to foster creative capacity through making explicit a number of principles that are not yet widely understood or enacted in the academy. The ‘gamer’ generation. 33. N. such capacity is unlikely to be engendered by ‘putting students into groups’. 123 . C. or indeed. and so on. In terms of student identity. Far from the individualised romance of a ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull’. (1998). References Anderson. for example. According to Beck and Wade. Teamwork in ants. Conclusion There is much that militates against the ‘emergence’ of creative capital from higher education learning environments as they currently exist. It is also unlikely in an assessment culture which values right answers over useful strategies. (2004). rather than learning from command and control instruction from ‘outside’ the sub-culture. is much more likely than their baby boomer predecessors to understand this mode of engagement and much less welcoming of top-down rules. to invest in modes of thinking and doing that work best in complex systems—sustainable. regardless of where they are physically located. observable and replicable processes and practices in 21st century economic and social life.

Imagining a different world. K. New York: Oxford University Press. N. Wisdom (Eds. C. 25–34. (2007). MA: Harvard University Press. Managing for creativity. S. International Journal of Cultural Studies. The creative city. (2000). Defining boundaries for creativity. R. T. London: Routledge. R. V. R. A model of 42 models of creativity. 39(4). Handbook of creativity (pp. M. & J. (2006b). Greene. Kaufman. (1981). Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. S.educause. Johnson. Florida. Creativity and development. Cunningham. (2005). Cardiff. McWilliam. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. L. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Sawyer. R. (2005). R. London: Routledge... 123 . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.. from http://www. Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. Feldman. C. (2006). M. 83(7). (2001). p. 102. R. 2007. D.. In R. Fryer. Landry. CA: Stanford University Press. & Dawson. (2003). Retrieved 8 July. Harvard Business Review. Facilitating creativity in higher education: A brief account of national teaching fellows’ views. Byron.. Jackson.). John-Steiner. Sternberg. D. J. Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum. Hof. M. M. Oliver.). and schools: A distributed behavioral model. (nd).edu. Paper presented at the creativity or conformity? Building cultures of creativity in higher education. S.642 High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 Beck. Media International Australia. (2005). Oliver. 21(4). S.. Brussels. Moskal. red3d. Wisdom (Eds. & Sternberg. New York: Macmillan. (2006). R. July. Canberra. Moran. (2007). In N. Belgium: European University Association. Howkins. Retrieved 27 April. 18–24. SCEPTrE Scholarly Paper. J. (2002). 54–65. Creativity. Understanding creativity: A survey of ‘creative’ academic teachers. Shaw. Emergence in organisations. New learning environments for the 21st century: Exploring the edge. Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. 17. B. J. 7(1). The mind’s best work. Seel. S... New York: Penguin. Jackson. 55–60. Lessig. New York: Viking. (2007). P. Boids: Background and update. (2007). Csikszentmihalyi. & Wade. M. National Center on Education and the Economy. The Times. Hartley. C. (2005). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. (1964). (2000). N. 18–19 January. 313–335). from http://www. QUT. Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Living on thin air: The new economy. 9. Creativity in higher education. Creators: From Chaucer to Walt Disney. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Feinstein. 129–141. Mass: Harvard Business School. Oxford: Capstone. How labour’s philistines grabbed gold. Sternberg (Ed. (2007). (2007). The value chain of meaning and the new economy. M. Palo Alto. (2006). Copyright 2001. Tough choices or tough times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce. D. P. R. (1989). Retrieved 5 December. J. & Goodnight. A whole new mind. K. & J. Boston. 1–26. (2000). (2006). (2007).nl/Emergence_in_Organisations _Web_Version_Revised_April_2006. from http://www. M. The nature of creative development.. In N. Contingency. Leadbeater. Nakamura. irony and solidarity. C. et al. 3(March). Shaw. Computer Graphics. Pink. industry and policy implications.. J. Caves. Florida.pdf Seely Brown. The vision for creative commons: What are we and where are we headed? Paper presented at the keynote address presented at the ‘Open Content Licensing (OCL): Cultivating the creative commons’. Australia: The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Hartman. (2004). H. London: Allen Lane.. theoliedmeier. (1999). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. New York: Basic Books. From cultural to creative industries: Theory. E. (2006a). All rights reserved (E-mail: richardtgreene@alum. What price a creative economy? Platform Papers: Quarterly Essay on the Performing Arts. The act of creation. Reynolds. BusinessWeek. Perkins. R. Cambridge. K. 2007. (1999). The kids are alright: How the gamer generation is changing the (2006). The rise of the creative class. R.). 2007. 8–10 January. Koestler. Cunningham. herds. (2005). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson. (2001). European University Association. H. The power of US: Mass collaboration is shaking up business. London: Comedia. C. Reynolds. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. & Dziuban. 38(5). (1987). A. (2006). D. Creativity in higher education: Creating tipping points for cultural change. Jackson. J. (2002). J. Macintyre. Rorty. Brisbane. C. Robinson.. 74–88). 124–131.

Simonton. In M. 151–158. (2006). Tosey. Creation theories. The tyranny of a team ideology. 2004(September). Facilitating creativity in higher education: The views of national teaching fellows: Higher Education Academy. Zull. Series 1. 8–10 January. Sternberg. Thompson. M. 13(4). Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. American Psychologist. Cardiff. 55(1). (2004). Jackson. London: Design Council/Demos. Shaw. (2006). The Australian—Literary Review. (1999).). The Pedagogy for Employability Group. 68–72. 20.. Learning and employability. New York: Learning and Teaching Support Sternberg (Ed. R. (2007). (2000). In N.High Educ (2008) 56:633–643 643 Seltzer. 123 . New York: Learning and Teaching Support Network. Yorke (Ed. Series 1. Creativity and knowledge. The art of changing the brain. T. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Making creativity the centrepiece of higher education. K. E. (1999). In R. (2006). developmental and social aspects. M. L. D. (2006). Handbook of creativity (pp. 2007.bioteams. In M.). October 3. K. from http://www. Retrieved 27 April. Paper presented at the Creativity or conformity? Building cultures of creativity in higher education. (2007). M. 611–626. Organization Studies. R. Yorke (Ed. Pedagogy for employability. Enhance team performance by consistent individual behaviour.). p. (1992). Creativity: Cognitive. Learning and employability. The Creativity Centre. & Bentley. London: Routledge. Educational Leadership. J. Interfering with the interference: An emergent perspective on creativty in higher education. Sinclair.). The creative age: Knowledge and skills for the new economy. Employability in higher education: What it is what it is not. Slattery. A. Wisdom (Eds. P. & J. Weisberg. 226–250). persona. K. Yorke. Oliver. 29–42). (2006).