Paper summary - Unpacking Creativity, by Kerrie Unsworth

What I read

In this article, Unsworth explains that there is little research into how creative activities begin: what prompts the creativity, and in what state the creative problem exists. She proposes a 2x2 framework for evaluating how those two attributes relate to one another.

First, Unsworth references that there has been a great deal of research into creativity, but the majority of that research has defined creativity in the context of the output, embracing a definition of creativity where it is the “production of novel ideas that are useful and appropriate to the situation.” Because this definition doesn’t reference or consider how the creativity began, two things are left unanswered. First, creativity research that focuses on the ending state instead of the starting state only studies “success”—where something emerges from the process. Next, this way of thinking “encourages retrospective analysis of the process, which may lead to bias in recollection.”

Unsworth then introduces the two dimensions that make up the new framework. The first dimension examines why people start a creative activity in the first place. Some start based on an internal desire that they initiate themselves, while some start based on an external requirement, as when creativity is part of a job. The second dimension explores the type of the problem that is being solved. A closed problem means that the problem, and the method for solving the problem, is clear, while an open problem requires someone to find the problem (and the method for solving it.)

The two dimensions can be plotted on a matrix, where the four quadrants that emerge then form different ways of thinking about the starting state of a creative activity.

Unsworth names the first quadrant responsive creativity, where solving a problem is required by an external force, and the problem is well known ahead of time. In this case, the person solving the problem has little control over the activity; Unsworth indicates that this is the type of creativity that is the most studied, because the experiment itself forces a participant to participate, and the problem is assigned as part of the experiment.

The next quadrant is called expected creativity, where external pressures demand a creative approach, but the problem itself is discovered, not assigned. Unsworth indicates that, again, research into creativity has embraced this approach, because the experiment itself is the spark of the creative activity.

The third quadrant is called contributory creativity, where the problem is well understood, but a person decides to solve it because they want to, not because they are told to; these are “helping behaviors.”

The last quadrant is called proactive creativity. In this case, people elect to solve a problem, and find the problem on their own. Unsworth provides an example—where a shopfloor worker identifies that something can be improved, and then improves it. This creative space is the least researched, likely because it would require entirely retrospective accounts, or serendipity of being at the right place at the right time to observe something like this occurring.

Next, Unsworth provides three problems that may exist in the model. The first is that the dimensions may not be “orthogonal,” and always require external constraints. Next, the quadrants are not binary—they are spectrums. And, the examples used are circumstantial and are not fixed.

Unsworth then “verifies” the 2x2 matrix. She does this by examining if the “relationship between measures addressing a particular creativity type” are stronger than “those measures addressing different types.” Several examples of previous studies are provided in support of this.

Next, Unsworth examines the implications of the work. First, she looks at these implications from a theoretical perspective, focusing on the fact that the creativity body of research has ignored empirically exploring proactive creativity.

This may be, as described above, because it is logistically difficult to observe and measure. However, the research has explored proactive creativity theoretically. One example is the view that “taking charge” is when employees take things on themselves. Unsworth separates this from creativity, however, and views this as innovation instead: “Taking charge is operationalized as acts of implementation rather than generation of ideas; thus, taking charge is an innovative, rather than creative, behavior.” Another is the idea that “voice citizenship” is when people speak about necessary changes, but Unsworth explains that this, too, does not count as creativity. “Personal initiatives” are also related, but because it is “concerned with general problem solving and includes using established ideas, methods, and procedures,” it too does not count as proactive creativity.

The 2x2 provides a way of thinking about activities involved in creativity change based on the dimensions. Solving an open problem uses different methods (such as scanning and defining) than other types.

Unsworth also examines another aspect of existing creativity research focused on creative motivation. She indicates that “factors that influence an employee’s credibility… or their selling skills… will affect proactive and contributory creativity, but not responsive and expected creativity.” There are predictors (like this influence, as well as time constraints) that have different impact on creativity. Time pressure is helpful for well-specified problem solving, while it hinders unformulated problem solving.

She revisits, again, the idea that the method for studying responsive creativity is different than the other types, and is easier to study—resulting in a lack of understanding of internal, poorly defined problem solving.

What I learned and what I think

I appreciate the way this work is presented. It does not claim to be anything more than what it is—a framework for thinking about a part of research that hasn’t been explored. The framework is as good as any other framework: frameworks put boundaries around complexity, so we can make meaning of ambiguity. And the dimensions selected are as good as any other choice of dimensions related to the things that happen before creativity “starts.”

I agree with the assumption that the way a creative activity starts impacts both the way it is approached and the output in meaningful ways. The time constraint example is right on; timeboxing a well-defined design problem forces a limit on bluesky thinking, which could go on forever, and causes a designer to just solve the thing (probably using existing patterns exclusively.) There is something here, specifically, that’s valuable to the presence of or lack of magic in design portfolios and the wants of hiring managers to see something ill-structured vs well-structured (oppositional to the reality that the junior designer will be focusing on using patterns in a time-boxed environment almost exclusively.)

I wonder about how creativity became almost directly equated to problem solving in the paper. I must paint is not solving a problem, and I made a painting does not mean I’ve solved any problem. Maybe there’s a non-stated assumption that creativity is problem solving because the paper is in the context of management in businesses, but it makes no reference to things like Herb Simon’s research of ill-defined vs well-defined problems, or to pragmatism as compared to a more embodied approach.

I’m not sure about where elements were places on the matrix. For example, ‘Creating artwork” lives in the intersection of an open problem (conceptually, although realities like skill certainly “close” the problem a little), and external influence. If you work at Hallmark, you need to be creative on demand. But there really is no externality on art, and often, external influence pushes you away from making things (like, I need to make some money; working at a restaurant is an external influence away from giving me any time to hang out in the studio.)

There’s also a strange tension in the reality of design, where externality is certainly driving the process in the studio—I have to do my work, because it’s my job—but designers largely select design as a profession because they want to do it. I remember Kevin McDonald joking about taking on projects and “begging the client to pay them” so he had the opportunity to work on them. It’s real: when you get a passion, design or otherwise, I think the external/internal stops being a gradient and almost becomes irrelevant.

There’s another Robin Williams effect here. We’re making frameworks about things that maybe aren’t frameable. But I don’t know if that’s possible. We can study anything. If we can establish real knowledge and theories and facts about how people speak, or hold a fork, or whatever else, why can’t we establish the same things about creativity? But it just feels wrong to me, or at least the way it lives in the context of both empirical research and attempts to reduce it. I read papers like this and nod along, and then when I’m done and inductively compare it to 25 years of knowing about design, it all just seems so wrong.

As an example, Unsworth says, very definitively, “Taking charge is operationalized as acts of implementation rather than generation of ideas; thus, taking charge is an innovative, rather than creative, behavior.”

I struggle so much with such assertions. Embodied doesn’t even capture what’s wrong with this; it’s not just circumstantially contextual. It’s something more profound.

This paper was so much better than yesterday’s, because while it had a framework, and briefly mentioned some sort of p-value driven certainty, it mostly lived in the world of ideas.