Transposing The 4P of Creativity Online. ACT 1: The Creative Product.

We all know a creative product when we see one: what we individually deem as creative, however, may differ. Creative products (i.e. ideas or objects produced from creative activity in a certain domain) are therefore context-specific. Going back to our 4Ps of Creativity model (Rhodes, 1961), the creative product is built by the person as the result of the creative process, while being supported in a creative environment (press). The creative product is the new innovation, and while it is central to why creativity is championed and desired, it is possibly the least studied factor in the field of creativity research (but see MacKinnon, 1970). Not only is research scarce, but there is also a lack of consensus on how the creative product should be defined, and therefore evaluated. It is widely agreed that the product must be novel and useful, and in order to determine how well a product meets these criteria different domain experts apply their own litmus tests to ascertain which products in their field are worthy of being deemed creative. But the path is not quite that direct for a creative product:

What this suggests then is that even if a product is creative, and a domain-specific innovation, it may not be accepted by the people that work or research in that field. Indeed, it may even be the case that the more innovative a product is, and the more it challenges the accepted wisdom of a field or domain, the less likely it is to be accepted. To this point, one of the more widely researched aspects of creative products is the diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 1962). Diffusion is a social process where new ideas are communicated from person to person through an information exchange that occurs as a convergence process involving interpersonal networks. Traditionally the study of this process has examined how acceptance of the creative product is influenced by various aspects of the creative product, innovation, or invention, such as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trial ability, and observability. There are, however, more factors at play, such as the number of people involved in making a decision (such as the experts in the field), the type of communication used, the environment or culture, and who is supporting or distributing the creative product. It is these variables that are potentially of greatest interest to reflect on when thinking of online teaching and learning practices.

Indeed, if one of the intended learning outcomes of a subject, module, activity, or assessment task is to demonstrate creativity, it is imperative to provide an environment within which creative content can be nurtured and championed. One possible model for this is the Aggregate-then-Curate (A/C) model (Whitworth, Garnett, & Pearson, 2012). This model explores digital inclusion by examining how the creation of online content can be initiated by individuals, but then facilitated by ‘digital learning champions’ (individuals with the requisite skills to nurture and manage collections of online content), community members, and formal educational institutions. The nod here to community is fascinating, as it mirrors our earlier reflection on Diffusion as a social process. If we were to translate these ideas into an online tertiary setting, students may be able to gain confidence in their creative outputs by establishing an online student community of practice, where creative products could be curated (a virtual ‘museum of curiosities’ or Omeka site could be potential platforms). This could support both their sense of competence and also relatedness – two of the three basic psychological needs outlined in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) – and hence drive intrinsic motivation towards the completion of the activity or task.

So what music could I share here to best illustrate these concepts? It didn’t take me long to settle on a recording of The Dance of the Sugar-Plum Fairy from P. I. Tchaikovsky’s The Nutcracker, performed by the University of Melbourne Symphony Orchestra during Lockdown, 2020. This recording epitomises how individual creative outputs can be encouraged and fostered by community and education institutions and facilitated by individuals with the requisite digital literacy to act as catalysts for the A/C process. Keep your eyes peeled for our very own University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor, Professor Duncan Maskell, on clarinet!

Reference List

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1970). Creativity: A multi-faceted phenomenon. In J. D. Roslansky (Ed.), Creativity: A discussion at the Nobel conference, 17-32. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Whitworth, A., Garnett, F., & Pearson, D. (2012). Aggregate-then-Curate: how digital learning champions help communities nurture online content. Research in Learning Technology, 20. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.18677

Williamon, A. (2019). What is Creativity? In interview with Professor Gary McPherson for the subject Creativity, Genius, Expertise and Talent, Melbourne Conservatorium of Music, University of Melbourne.