The paper "Evaluation of Accidental and Association Theory of Creativity" is a great example of business coursework. Creativity has been core in human development. In explaining how creativity occurs, there various theoretical basis formulated to explain the same. The aim of the paper was to evaluate the accidental and association theory of creativity. The paper established that the two are critical in explaining instances of creativity as they are unique in their own ways. Nevertheless, the article found out that the most plausible option lies in the association theory owing to the fact it allows for structured rational engagement as opposed to chance occurrence that is evident in accidents theory. Introduction Creativity has been a significant aspect of humanity that has allowed generations to overcome various issues.
Creativity is conceptualised in regard to two core characteristics. Creativity lies within the ability to churn out unexpected & original idea that is appropriate or is useful in regard to certain limitations (Dietrich, 2004, p. 1011). Gerlovina (2011, p. 1) notes that there various theoretical constructs that have been advanced so as to conceptualise creativity & creative process in regard to where creativity is derived from and what makes individuals creative.
An example of such a construct is the theory of association (Gerlovina, 2011, p. 12) and the theory of accidents/ serendipity (Miettinen, 2006, p. 177). The purpose of this article is to compare and evaluate the theory of association and accidents theories of creativity. The paper argues that the two theories are unique in their own way in supporting creativity process. This is rooted in the fact that application of accidents/ serendipity is evident in engineering & chemistry domain while the theory of association is evident if product development and innovation.
However, among the two theories, the most plausible option in explaining creativity is a theory of association owing to the fact that it is premised on ‘ divergent thinking, non-rational & free association thinking, which can be facilitated by brainstorming and followed convergent thinking so as to churn out creative solution’ (Gerlovina, 2011,p. 12-13). This is as opposed to accidents theories that deem most innovation as ‘ happy accidents’ that emerge unexpectedly and not a rational process that individuals can engage in deliberately (Meyers & Gerstman, 2007, p. 38). The Theories The core argument of the association theory of creativity is embedded in the ability of individuals to build a new relationship among various constructs or ideas.
The whole cognitive process of associative reasoning is anchored on utilisation of analogy and metaphor. Additionally, the whole process is anchored on ‘ complex similarity judgement, recognition and simplification of tasks’ (Grace, Gero & Saunders, 2012, p. 195). Gerlovina (2011, p. 12-13) opines that within the psychometric model of association, the belief is that creativity can be taught and learnt. The core argument underlying this proposition is that creativity is a function of free association thinking, divergent thinking and non-rational thinking which is mainly aided by brainstorming and succeeded by convergent thinking so as to present a creative idea. On the other hand, Meyers & Gerstman (2007, p. 38) posits that theory of accidents/ serendipity of creativity is rooted on the realisation that creativity is open-ended and as such any possibility is viable owing to the organic and non-linear nature that demarcates the whole process and its eventuality.
As such the belief is that the whole encounter is not planned as it does not adhere to existing conditionality but on a chance event.
In another paradigm, it is seen as a chance encounter where individuals ignore the second part and utilise the chance encounter in a productive manner (André , 2009, p. 19). This supports the premise that creativity can sprout out in unexpected accidental manner through mistakes. Such observation has been evident in disciplines such as engineering and organic chemistry where most discoveries have been made by ‘ accident’ (Miettinen, 1996, p. 36).
André, P. (2009). Designing for (un) serendipity-computing and chance. The Biochemist, 31(6), 19-22.
André, P., Teevan, J., & Dumais, S. T. (2009, October). Discovery is never by chance: designing for (un) serendipity. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition (pp. 305-314). ACM.
Beale, R. (2007). Supporting serendipity: Using ambient intelligence to augment user exploration for data mining and web browsing. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 65(5), 421-433.
Cunha, M. P. E. (2005). Serendipity: why some organizations are luckier than others (No. 472). FEUNL Working Paper.
Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 11(6), 1011-1026.
Gerlovina, Z. (2011). Eureka! Unraveling the Mystery Behind Creativity. Psychology, Barnard College.
Grace, K., Gero, J., & Saunders, R. (2012, May). Representational affordances and creativity in association-based systems. In International Conference on Computational Creativity, pp.195-202.
McCay-Peet, L., & Toms, E. G. (2010, August). The process of serendipity in knowledge work. In Proceedings of the third symposium on Information interaction in context (pp. 377-382). ACM.
Meyers, H., & Gerstman, R. (Eds.). (2007). Creativity: Unconventional wisdom from 20 accomplished minds. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Miettinen, R. (1996). Theories of invention and an industrial innovation. Science Studies, 9(2), 34-48.
Miettinen, R. (2006). The sources of novelty: A cultural and systemic view of distributed creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(2), 173-181.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of management review, 14(4), 516-531.