Creative thinking

With a mixture of perspectives regarding creativity’s relationship with design thinking, the term must be defined and examined.

30

The aim of this section is to define creative thinking in the context of design. According to Candy (1998: 112) creativity had been defined by many different aspects and contexts; as a result, a fully coherent model of its multi-dimensional aspects has yet to be achieved. For example, according to Boden creativity is:

‘the ability to come up with ideas or artefacts that are new, surprising and valuable. ‘Ideas’ here include concepts, poems, musical composition, scientific theories, cookery recipes, choreography, jokes – and so on.’ (2004: 1)

Boden’s definition for creativity was an example that demonstrated the broad aspects of human behaviour to which creativity can be applied and the complexity of the term. Another example that described the broad aspects and complexity of creativity was given by Partridge and Rowe:

‘Creativity’ is an evocative, emotion-charged word that can mean very different things to different people.’ (1994: 1)

Partridge et al (1994: 7) stated that any specific definitions naturally contain an implicit bias towards a certain theory; as a result, giving a fixed definition of creativity was perhaps misguided. To further establish the broad spectrum within which creativity had been defined by Partridge et al (1994: 7) additional examples of definitions for creativity were needed.

Rindlay and Lumsden’s (1988: 10) definition was an example that demonstrated that:

‘We define discovery as the product of the creative process. Thus, a discovery may be the articulation of a new problem, a solution to a pre-existing problem, or both. An innovation is any discovery that attains some level of adoption in the society under consideration.’

Creativity is a term that is complex with different aspects of application within different contexts. This had highlighted the potential issues of linking two complex terms such as creative thinking and design thinking together. Without understanding the meanings of the terms, linking to two could lead to further confusion.

31

To understand and identify any possible links between creative thinking and design thinking, the works of Spendlove and Sternburg were selected.

Spendlove’s research in the development of both policy and practice in a variety of areas including design and technology education, teacher development and creative education (The University of Manchester, 2012) made Spendlove’s definition of creativity the most relatable to the context of this thesis and on the topic of design thinking. With one of the research’s objectives set to clarify if design thinking is thinking done by designers; the contexts of which Spendlove’s definitions emerged appeared to be a suitable starting point to explore the linkage between the two terms.

Sternburg’s work was selected because some of Spendlove’s research was based on the theories that were put forward by Sternburg in the 1990s. It had been acknowledged that selecting two specific researchers’

work could lead to bias towards certain theories. However, with the meaning of creativity being different in different contexts; selecting work from researchers within the field of this thesis was the only way to truly understand creative thinking and design thinking relationship.

Sternburg put forward the following definition for creativity:

‘Creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e., original or unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful or meets task constraints)’

‘At an individual level, creativity is relevant, for example, when solving problems on the job and in daily life. At a social level, creativity can lead to new scientific findings, new movements in art, new inventions, and new social programs.’ (Sternburg, 1996) Looking at Sternburg’s definition of creativity it fits into the design context well; as design has the power to shape the future, the social part of the definition reflects the importance of creativity in design. Furthermore Sternburg’s (1993: 229-230) investment theory of creativity identified six distinct but interrelated resources: intellectual abilities, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, motivation, and environment. These six distinctive

32

characteristics can be related to how design activities achieve their goals.

To identify if the investment theory is a suitable definition of creativity in the design context a content analysis of literature published in 2013 was conducted. Nussbaum’s (2013) book Creative Intelligence (CQ) was chosen. The reason behind using this book was the author’s claims regarding design thinking and creativity. The content analysis compared the investment theory’s six resources of creativity to the CQ framework’s five competencies.

The literature evidence showed Sternburg’s investment theory and Nussbaum’s ‘CQ’ framework had some similarities. The CQ framework has five ‘competencies’, they are: knowledge mining, framing, playing, making and pivoting (Nussbaum, 2013: 33–39); this is similar to the six resources for creativity. Comparing the listed characteristics and meaning behind them, Tables 1 presents their similarities:

33

Competencies/ Resources Evidence from the CQ framework Evidence from the Investment

theory Similarities

Knowledge and knowledge mining

Nussbaum (2013: 33) claimed that knowledge mining is the knowledge

at the foundation of the CQ framework; here, it means bringing

together information from various sources in new and surprising ways.

According to Sternburg (1993:

229), knowledge from the six resources of creativity is the must

have requirement in order for someone to contribute creatively.

Both form the foundation for the different theory or framework. Both

authors emphasised without in depth knowledge of the field, one

cannot make a meaningful contribution towards creativity.

Framing and thinking style

Framing is the focal lens that can guide us through the vagaries of a

volatile world. People who

Thinking styles are the ways in which people choose to use their

intelligence as well as their knowledge. Thus thinking style focuses on how these abilities and

knowledge acquired are used in day-to-day interaction with the environment (Sternburg, 1993:

229).

Both authors described framing and thinking style as ways people

interact with their environments and situations.

Pivoting and Personality

Pivoting from the inception to the production side of creation is the final of the five competencies.

Pivoting is a way of reprising creativity’s crucial role in capitalism

as a driver of innovation and growth. Pivoting often requires

fifth and last attribute is belief in oneself. Because they go against vested interests, creative people often find themselves at points where no one seems to believe in their ideas except for themselves

(Sternburg, 1993: 230).

Some aspects of pivoting and the fifth aspect of personality are similar in the sense that they are required in order to maintain the relationship within the creative

teams.

Table 1 The similarities of the 5 Competencies of Creative Intelligence (CQ) and 6 Resources for Creativity

34

The evidence indicated that certain aspects of the investment theory were similar to the CQ framework. With these similarities it could be said that the investment theory is a useful way of defining creativity in the design contexts.

Spendlove (2005: 10) commented that creativity was being overused, oversimplified, misrepresented and frequently interchanged inappropriately for associated terms such as innovation or enterprise. It could be argued that the ‘CQ’ framework is an example of creativity being oversimplified and interlinked with associated terms. With this in mind, Spendlove (2008b: 11) went on to clarify and explain the definition of creativity in the design sector with the Triadic Schema (Figure 2). The basis of the Triadic Schema model is the concept of emotion residing in three areas in Design and Technology: the person, the process of learning and the products that surround them. In the centre of this model is the location where the three areas link to human emotions.

Figure 2 Triadic Schema model (Spendlove, 2008b: 11)

Spendlove identified human emotions and feelings as being the main manipulators that have influence on the creative thinking process. This is important as one of the main functions of design activity is emotional

35

manipulation and designers are often seen as powerful ‘creators’,

‘propagators’, ‘changers’ and ‘enders’ (Spendlove, 2008b: 12).

Understanding how human emotions affect thinking and behaviour is the key to truly understanding creative thinking in the design context.

With an understanding of the definition of creativity in the design context and Spendlove’s concepts of design activity, it is possible to describe the relationship between creative thinking and design thinking. From the viewpoint of those who conduct design activity, creative thinking could be seen as a component of design thinking. Without that, it would not be possible to carry out design thinking. From the viewpoint of the non-design sectors, creative thinking could be seen as a resulting outcome of conducting design thinking.