4.4.1 Article I: The development of a systemic framework for creativity research
This article explores the possibilities of complex systems sciences and systems modelling in providing new insights for creativity research. It starts from the idea that creativity research is rich and versatile but that it also invokes
unsolved paradoxes, which are partly caused by insufficient assumptions and theories on creativity. The article highlights the need for more integrative frameworks for studying and supporting creativity in varying contexts.
The study then proceeds by suggesting how a systems view can be one possible candidate for the purpose of developing a more integrative theoretical understanding of creativity. In the late 1980s, systems models responded to the challenges of creativity research, especially those brought about by the notion of the social context. However, those models have become somewhat obsolete and impractical. The article makes the claim that it that might be partly caused by the fact that the link between the now well-known systems models of creativity and recent developments in the systems sciences, such as in the area of complex systems theories, are not well established.
With this in mind, the article then aims at clarifying these links and makes the argument that a complexity perspective may provide a useful framework for reframing many of the well-known “facts” about creativity. Hence, the study presents a review of some of the applications of complex systems sciences in the field of creativity research and presents a synthesis of the findings.
4.4.2 Article II: Mapping the complex innovation practices
This article takes innovation research as its focus when examining the applications of complexity theories. The study consists of a literature review that has a special focus on studies applying a complexity perspective in the context of innovation and open innovation. It takes a somewhat critical stance and aims at assessing the added value that such applications provide for our knowledge on innovation practices. Thus, it contributes both to the areas of innovation and creativity literature and to the development of complexity-based frameworks.
In the analysis of the literature, the study focuses on the key concepts used, their alleged value for the practice of innovation, the possible links the referred complexity concepts have with the existing literature on innovation, and the methodological and philosophical positions the examined literature takes.
The article identifies the key concepts of "edge of chaos", “phase shift”,
“emergence and self-organisation”, "(co)evolution", and "complexity regulation” from innovation literature and clarifies the ways these concepts are used in these studies from the ontological and epistemological perspectives. In addition, the study suggests key areas of development for future research, including forging a stronger link with existing innovation theory and giving greater weight to empirical evidence. In addition, the study applies the findings of the literature review and presents a complexity framework for practitioners so that they can benefit from the advantages of a complexity theoretical lens.
4.4.3 Article III: Interaction perspective on creative collaboration This article presents an empirical case study of creative collaboration based on the data gathered from ACSI (Aalto Camp of Societal Innovation) held in Espoo, Finland in 2011. It focuses on the interactions of the participants and aims at finding out how people mutually facilitate each other’s work by focusing on the interactional patterns of the participants.
Empirically, this study is grounded on the data of groups, which work in a self-directed manner, free of hierarchies and working scripts, with cases that necessitate a great amount of creative input from the groups. It is the aim of this study to examine the interactions in such groups when they are truly in a
“self-organising state” – a working mode suggested as beneficial for creative collaboration, according to complexity scholars. As the empirical case makes this possible, the data provides a unique view on creative collaboration.
From the practical point of view, it is the focus of this study to find out how self-managed groups, which have creativity as the primary foci of their work, can benefit from the synergy of diverse others. This observational study conducted in an eight day-long innovation camp sheds light on this issue by identifying several interactive patterns facilitating the creative process of the groups. The findings point toward certain strategies that can be beneficial for the facilitation of creative collaboration.
4.4.4 Article IV: interpersonal strategies in self-organizing creative groups
This article presents an empirical case study of creative problem-solving based on the data gathered from ACSI (Aalto Camp of Societal Innovation) held in Espoo 2010. As with article III, this study focuses on creative problem solving in self-organised groups. However, it is a case study of a different camp and groups and was conducted post-hoc.
This paper uses a complexity-based framework from the outset, meaning that it takes certain categories a priori, as suggested by the complexity science-based framework, and applies them to narratives that were constructed science-based on the empirical data, which were collected through interviews and written observational accounts. This analysis yields a group of factors that supported and inhibited creative problem-solving in these groups. The study thus uses complexity theories as a theoretical device to point at certain elements in the data.
The results reveal group differences in creative capacity as well as difficulties in achieving a working mode that enables the production of creative output within a short space of time. The study discusses some of the problematic issues in creativity research literature and aims at providing novel answers to them from the point of view of its findings.
4.4.5 Article V: Conditions and practices for bottom-up innovation strategies
The third empirical article presents a longitudinal case study of an innovation initiative, focusing on the interaction between a city as a client and a group of experts as collaborators and creative problem solvers. The case study is based on data gathered from two consecutive ACSIs (Aalto Camp of Societal Innovation) held in Espoo 2010 and 2011.
This paper takes a different perspective on creative collaboration to the two other empirical articles (III and IV) because it focuses on only one innovation case in a longitudinal setting and pays attention to stakeholder relationships and the enabling environmental conditions and their interactions with group dynamics. Thus, it operates on multiple different levels of analysis.
The case study examines how the urban planning challenge of a city area has been worked on in two consecutive ACSI camps. Based on the analysis, the article suggests heterogeneous, self-organising groups are key structures for generating innovations. The study demonstrates the process of generating change and reveals how the role of "solutions" in an innovation process is complex and how initial goals and solutions transform along with the process and across a web of different stakeholders.
5 Results
In the following sections the main findings of the study are reviewed. Each article contributes to the dissertation from its own, individual angle, and they are also partly based on different research contexts and methodologies. The following section compiles the most important findings of the articles. The presentation of the articles is organised around the analytical framework, as presented in the section 3.3. Then each finding is reflected on from the practical point of view, namely, how collective creativity can be fostered in an organisational context. Section 4.1 answers the first research question: How can the application of complexity science improve our understanding of collective creativity? Section 4.2 answers the second research question: What are the most important factors for fostering creative collaboration from the perspective of complexity theories? Table 3 below compiles the key contributions of the articles and presents their data, contexts and records.