Evaluation of Accidental and Association Theory of Creativity - Coursework Example

Surname: Other Names Student Number: Topic: Assessment 2 Evaluation of accidental and association theory of creativity Lecturer/Tutor’s Name: Diane Phillips Tutorial (Day/Time): Word Count: 2000 words Date Submitted: Abstract Creativity has been core in humanity development. In explain how creativity occurs, there various theoretical basis formulated to explain the same. The aim of the paper was to evaluate 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 on 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 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 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 on the fact that application of accidents/ serendipity is evident in engineering & chemistry domain while theory of association is evident if product development and innovation. However, among the two theories, the most plausible option in explaining creativity is 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 association theory of creativity is embedded on 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 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 chance event. In others paradigm, it is seen as 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). Evaluation In evaluating the two theories of creativity, the paper deconstructs and pinpoints the weaknesses and strengths as means of weight against each other and in explaining creativity process. In this regard, the article outlines the weaknesses and strength of the two so as to establish the most plausible option amongst the two constructs in explaining creativity and related domains such as discovery and innovation. Equally, the quality, verification and validation are critical in the analysis as they point beyond chance that the prescribed relationship is valid (Weick, 1989, p.517). The strength of accidents/ serendipity theory of creativity and thus it plausibility is affirmed by most discoveries and inventions that have ever happened across the globe where individuals have found ground breaking discoveries that they have not been looking for. Instead, it has been through chance occurrence that they utilise to develop new insights bacteria (André, Teevan & Dumais, 2009, p.305). Miettinen (2006, p.177); Miettinen (1996, p.36) observes that serendipity/ accidents theory holds a special position in science domain such as organic chemistry and engineering where significant chunk of discoveries have been through accidents. The core of such proposition is premised on the argument that ii is impractical forecasting the mixture of historical happenings that may emerge as critical for sprouting of an innovation. Equally, it is tough to envisage the development of a technical solution and its future application. There are various discoveries that affirm such serendipity theory of creativity that most discoveries or creativity is as result of chance event and these chance encounters are utilised properly. The first is the discovery of Penicillin by Alexander Flemming. In the initial plan, the aim was to disinfect cultures of bacteria. Nevertheless, this did not materialise and he left for his vacation. However, during his return he found the culture contaminated by penicillin moulds which had decimated the bacteria (André, Teevan & Dumais, 2009, p.305; André, 2009, p.19). Other examples include chocolate chip cookie and use of copper phthalocyanine as dye. For instance in discovering chocolate chip cookie, Ruth Wilhelm did not have the requisite chocolate to produce chocolate drop cookies and so she utilised broke chunks that resulted from the vibration of mixer that dropped the pieces into the mixing bowl (André, Teevan & Dumais, 2009, p.305). However, the weakness of such theoretical basis lies out of the fact that it rules out key ingredients to creativity such as critical thinking and rationality by implying that discoveries are as result of chance event. For instance, Meyers & Gerstman (2007, p.38) indicates that accidents theory of creativity is rooted in ‘happy accidents’. In this regard, ‘happy accidents’ are deemed as realisations that were not intended for and came about as result of accidental bumping or through trial and error. This elicits question if human being who are equipped with knowledge, rationality and ability to think critically to leave creativity processes to chance occurrences. As such, his proposition is weakened by the fact that humanity cannot leave every issue to chance occurrences, but should be able to shape their destiny as they deem appropriate. Protagonist and proponents of accidents theory argue that serendipity is not only a mere chance and luck. For instance, Louis Pasteur notes that ‘chance favours the prepared mind’ (André, 2009, p.20). In this regard, the argument is that luck or chance occurrence is just a fraction of the whole process since the individual in search of a new insight is aware of the surrounding knowledge and thus is able to utilise the emerging and unexpected side information. Cunha (2005, p.8) notes that serendipitous discovery entails active learning and analysis despite its accidental nature since the involved individuals actively engage in purposeful search effort. On the other hand, opponents of accidents theory suppose that it is not easy to design to generate serendipity and sagacity as compared to association (André, 2009, p.20). Discovery is not by chance and there is the possible reality that not every individual is able to build the connectivity out of the chance occurrence (André, Teevan & Dumais, 2009, p.305). According to McCay-Peet & Toms (2010), ‘the triggers for serendipity appear infinite and consequently information systems' support for serendipity has been difficult to realize’ (p.377).as such, tapping current existing information through a given information system is difficult. For instance, it is a challenge to develop ambient intelligence so as to support user exploration for data mining (Beale, 2007, p.421). Closely related to the above is the temporal nature of serendipitous discovery. Cunha (2005, p.8) opines that the concern is that discoveries under accidental theory occurs as a result of an individual being in right place at the right time. The view is that individuals discover issues because ‘they were lucky to be there when something happened’. It is such weakness and trivial nature of serendipity theory that allows association theory to manifest its strength owing to the fact that is realises that creativity can be a deliberate process that individual can engage in through divergent thinking where ideas are raise, sieved and concluded through convergent thinking (Grace, Gero & Saunders, 2012, p.195). This proposition presents creativity as a deliberate and well planned process that does not occur haphazardly, but through well though process that involves rational and critical thinking. Divergent thinking is premised on generation of numerous ideas as much as possible without limiting anyone of those ideas. This is closely followed by evaluation of the ides in respect to the issue under consideration. To gain such ideas brainstorming becomes the norm since the more the ideas the better it is (Gerlovina, 2011, p.13). Iterations and reiterations occupies the core of the whole processes where ideas are edited so as to align the whole process to constant changes through open mindedness and lateral thinking (Meyers & Gerstman, 2007, p.140). under association theory, combination and improvement is the order of the process as it offers leeway for improving on ideas that were advanced by other individuals (Gerlovina, 2011, p.13). In this regard, the association theory acknowledges that most creative end are as result of combination and improvement based on various ideas generated through brainstorming so as to create a new solution/ distributed invention. There are various creative solutions and discoveries that have been as result of such processes especially under organisational innovation through knowledge management and learning organisations. An example is the development of enzyme-aided pulp bleaching. Through formulation of ideas at VTT biotechnology meeting, two possible ways of removing residual lignin was mooted. Such encounter depicts source of distributed invention through divergent thinking, brainstorming and convergence (Miettinen, 1996, p.37-38). Discussions The emerging realisation is that of serendipity/ accident theory is plausible in explaining creativity and discovery owing to the fact most significant discoveries in engineering, chemical and medical field have been as a result of accidental and luck discovery that was not the initial plan of the whole encounter. Equally, the theory’s plausibility is strengthened by the fact that even if the creativity is through chance, occurrence, this does not occur in a vacuum, but as a result of deliberate information search. However, in another perspective, the theory’s plausibility is limited by the fact that humanity creativity cannot be left to chance as rationality and critical thinking occupies a central role in humanity processes. Equally, designing information system for serendipitous discovery is not easy and that participating conditions is temporal and reliant on an individual being at the right time at right place. On the other, hand, theory of association presents an opportunity for distributed invention/ discovery where individual’s rationality converge divergent views through brainstorming. The plausibility of this theory rests on the fact that it allows for structured engagement outside the accidents theory where discovery is a function of chance as opposed to deliberate encounter. As such the standpoint of the paper is that association theory presents the most plausible option as compared to accidents theory of creativity. The underlying core point of the argument is that theory of association presents a structured reasoning that allows individuals to investigate ideas and come up with creative solutions as opposed to the chance approach depicted in accidents theory despite of its huge contribution in discovery of new solutions. Conclusion The aim of the paper was to compare and evaluate the theory of association and accidents theories of creativity. The paper established that between the two, theory of association offers the most plausible option to creativity as it involves a structures knowledge inquiry and exploratory process not based on chance or luck occurrences, but that which appreciates the logical and critical cognitive role of humanity in conceptualising issues. References 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. Read More