Expertise kills creativity? Creative thinking doesn't exist… & Workshops

Since 2,5 years I am undertaking a massive study on creativity. Pure out of professional interest as a designer, facilitator and trainer of creativity. In my opinion management books and blogs on creativity don’t cut it. They often take a small part of creativity and extrapolate that small part as the big truth on creativity, which I find highly frustrating. Thus, I turned to science.

I think I invested almost a thousand euro’s in some solid scientific books on creativity and some business classics on creativity. Literature on creativity is rich but very scattered. That makes it difficult for me as a practitioner to translate the literature in such a way I can use it for work. So it is work in progress.

Last week I had the opportunity to present some of my finding at the IFKAD. Herewith I will share an edited-for-LinkedIn-version of the essay or paper that formed basis for this presentation. The essay is about the role of expertise in creativity and how expertise is (not) explicitly used in innovation and problem solving workshops. A long the way we will discover that creative thinking might not exist!

It is difficult for creativity scientists to agree on something

Like I said creativity research is a scattered business. That leaves us with many different, and sometimes contradicting conclusions. There are four reasons why this lanscape is so diverse. If you are not interested in these reasons, skip to the next paragraph.

Firstly, creativity is researched in a dozen research fields: social-, cultural-, developmental-, organizational, learning-, and cognitive psychology, business management, innovation and design, biology, neuroscience, philosophy, and in the Arts. Each research field looks at a different perspective of creativity. For example, biology is interested in creativity in animals and the differences between animals and humans, whereas organizational psychology investigated the role of working enviroment on creativity.   

Secondly, researchers focus on different aspects of creativity. Quite known in the field are the four P’s of creativity: creative person, creative process, creative product and press (i.e. creative context) (Rhodes, 1961; in Sawyer, 2012). We can link some research fields to some of these for P’s. For example, neuroscience typically focusses on the ‘person’ aspects of creativity, as neuroscientists investigate the brain. However, also the influence of context (i.e. press) on the person can be researched through neuroscience. And researching the creative product is typically interesting for the research field of business and innovation but also used as research method in psychology. Thus, the four P’s and the research fields may intertwine.

Thirdly, there is a long and ongoing debat about the definition of creativity and how to organize definitions on creativity. Often refered to by psychologists is the difference between ‘Big-C’ and ‘little-c’ creativity (Sawyer, 2012). Little-c refers to the individualistic definition of creativity: “creativity is a new mental combination that is expressed in the world” (Sawyer, 2012, p.7). In the Big-C definition the context is involved: “Creativity is the generation of a product that is judged to be novel and also to be appropriate, useful, or valuable by a suitably knowledgeable social group” (Sawyer, 2012, p.8).

Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) have added to more definitions to these two definitions: ‘Mini-c’, smaller than little c and refers to anything newly learned. ‘Pro-c’, which is on a different level, and refers to the professional expertise in a certain domain but that is not of such a level that it transfor the domain. (Sawyer, 2012).

Researchers are free to choose the definition that suits them. This shows for example in editted books with articles from different authors. In the preface the editors share that each author will choose his/her own definition on creativity, that fits the author’s research and research domain (f.e Runco and Pritkzer, 2011; Vartanian, Bristol and Kaufman, 2013).

And fourtly, creativity is measured in six different ways. All these methods have its advantages and disadvantages. I will mention them briefly.

One, creativity is measured through divergent problem solving, using divergent thinking tests. In these tests participants have to solve a problem that can have multiple outcomes (f.e. ‘how can you use this brick?’).

Two, creativity is measured through convergent problem solving, often using insights problems, which are problems that need a ‘different way of looking at the problem’.

Three, creativity is measured through assessment by others that know the assessed person well, like parents or direct boss. These people rate the level of creativity of the person.

Four, creativity is measured through self assessment. Participants keep diaries, fill out questionnairs about their (creative) achievement or rate themselves on creativity.

Five, creativity is measured through experts judgement on a created product that is made during the test.

Six, creativity is measured through histrometrics. The researcher analyses historical creative products or people that/who are famous for their contribution to a domain. From there the researchers tries to find the common ground.

As you may understand a neuroscientist and a social psychologist that both study the same aspect of creativity might conclude the opposite based on a different definition of creativity and on the use of different research methods. Therefore, it can be difficult for scientists to agree upon something.

If there is one thing they do agree upon…

No matter what definition, research method, research field they are from, creativity researchers agree upon the ‘fact’ that expertise positively correlates to creativity. Meaning if expertise goes up, creativity goes up. However, this was not always the case.

Traditionally, psychologists argued that expertise was not worth reseaching in context of creativity because (1) expertise is studied in domains (like chess playing) of which scientists thought creativity was not of involved and (2) it was generally believed that when expertise increases, creativity decreases (Weisberg, 2006). The latter was explained as follows.

Experts have a well-organized representation of a problem situation. Their expertise helps them to be able to look at an abstract level to the problem situation. It is argued that experts might find it difficult to make new associations outside their representation of the problem situation, and therewith, when expertise increases after a certain basic level, creativity decreases (Runco, 1994).

However, investigations and research continues to develop, and one can change one’s mind. For example, frontrunning creativity scientists Amabile and Sawyer were supportive of the claim that expertise kills creativity (Weisberg, 2006). Yet, in their influential books they embrace expertise as mediator of creativity (Amabile, 1998; Sawyer, 2012).

Their change in opinion on expertise and the role in creativity has its foundation in the pioneering research carried out by De Groot (1965) among novice and expert chess players. De Groot found that experts chess players were the better poblem solvers than the novice chess players because they have a deeper understanding of the problem situation (De Groot, 1965; In: Runco 1994 and Weisberg 2006). After the research by De Groot, more research on expertise in context of problem solving and creativity is carried out (Runco, 1994; Weisberg 2006). And nowadays it is agreed among creativity scientists that expertise mediates creativity (Weisberg, 2006; Sawyer, 2012).

As we come to understand the importance of expertise in creativity we should also make expertise a proirity in our problems solving and innovation workshops. And yet, facilitators keep focussing on enhancing creative thinking by tapping into our creative thinking skills, instead of focussing on expertise. If fact, I conducted a small research among facilitators of creativity (n=37) and about 25% thought that expertise actually kills creativity, 32% was neutral (or had no clue). So less than half of the facilitators (43%) understood that expertise helps in being creative!

What is the focus in innovation and problem solving workshops?

If we don’t focus on expertise in workshop, what do we focus on? In a problem solving or innovation workshop, a group of professionals try to tackle a problem. A facilitators is hired to guide the workshop. We, facilitators, use techniques that should stimulate participants to come up with as many ideas as possible that might contribute to the solution. We challenge them to be imaginative. That is why we say: ‘Don’t judge your ideas now.’ or ‘Many ideas will lead to good ideas.’. Or we ask: ‘How would superman solve this problem?’, ‘What picture fits this problem?’ or ‘What would make this problem worse?’, etc.

We use all these techniques in the idle hope participants gain insight, and will solve their problem. However, facilitators often have no idea about the working principle behind the method. How do these technique stimulate creative thinking? Why do they work? In order to answer that question we need to take a step back and ask ourselves if creative thinking even exists?

Does creative thinking exists?

The term creative thinking may refer to the creative result: the result was creative, so must have been the thinking. In that definition creative thinking exists. However, that does not say anything about the type of thinking involved.

Weisberg (2006) argues that a there is no such thing a creative thinking, there is only ordinary thinking with a creative result. Ordinary thinking exists out of the following activities: remembering, imagining, planning anticipating, judging, deciding, determining, perceiving, comprehending, recognizing, interpreting (Weisberg, 2006, p.106). He uses two examples, the Guernico by Picasso and the discovery of the Double Helix DNA by Watson and Crick, to give body to his argument. Picasso’s Guernico is a painting about war. He made a zillion drawing and paintings before he started his masterpiece, he was constantly imagining, planning, anticipating, judging and deciding what to do. Same goes for the discovery of the Double Helix. It was not a discovery falling out of the sky. There was a lot of all the thinking activities involved that led the two researchers to this creative result. Thus, in both cases ordinary thinking led to a creative result. (Weisberg, 2006)

 Let’s assume Weisberg (2006) is wrong and there is such a thing as creative thinking. How do scientists define creative thinking? Amabile (1998) says the following: “creative thinking […] refers to how people approach problems and solutions – their capacitiy to put existing ideas together in new combinations. The skill itself depends quite a bit on personality as well as on how a person thinks and works.”(Amabile, 1998, p.3). This definition of creative thinking does not give us any information about the type of thinking is involved. We stay in the same loop: ‘What type of thinking is creative thinking? Creative thinking.’.If we follow Weisberg’s (2006) argument, we can conclude that creative thinking is a combination of all kinds of thinking acitivities, not to be framed as a specific type of thinking.

When we try to stimulate creative thinking in workshop we should be aware on the thinking activity we focus on. Is the technique that is all about remembering, or imagining, or perceiving, etc.? And if we stimulate participants to think, how can we make sure that they use there expertise in their thinking?

 Why experts don’t floorish in workshops

By focussing on creative thinking we assume participants will use their expertise. There are multiple reasons for experts not to use their expertise to the fullest in a problem solving or innovation workshop.

Firstly, research by Collaros and Anderson (1969) shows that brainstorms with only experts yield less ideas than brainstorm with one or no experts, because experts among experts feel inhibited (Sawyer, 2012). Also, it is commonly agreed among creativity scientists that beside expertise, motivation is an important mediator of creativity (Amabile, 1996; Weisberg, 2006; Saywer, 2012). Lack of motivation is an important driver why we do not get the fullest contribution of experts in a workshop. Maybe the expert is insulted to be asked for a workshop about his or her expertise. Maybe the expert does not want to give his or her best idea, knowledge is power. Maybe the expert is afraind to loose face if s/he does not come with a brilliant idea. Or for any other reason a expert is not motivated to give it all s/he got in that workshop.

Secondly, as we focus on creative thinking we do not explicitely focus on using the expertise of the participants. An expert might be unaware of his or her expertise. For example, a realistic painter will find it difficult to understand that someone else cannot translate what s/he sees on a canvas. Also for a business professional, it is ‘easy to forget’ how much knowledge and expertise one has. This unawareness can also be a source of miscommucation: what is logical for you as an expert, is not logical for someone else, and can take up a lot time in workshops to make implicit assumptions explicit. There is a saying in the world of Start-ups that applies everywhere in life: ‘assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups’.

I conclude that we miss out on a lot of creativity in problem solving and innovation workshops because we don’t emphasize the use of expertise. The effect and quality of these workshops would be higher with this focus. Moreover, less miscommucation would also increase the efficiency of these workshops. 

What do you think?

References

• Amabile, T. M., (1996) Creativity in Context, Avalon publishing, New York.
• Amabile, T. M., (1998) “How to Kill Creativity”, Harvard Business Review, september-october issue, Boston.
• Collaros P. A., and Anderson L. R., (1969) “Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of memebers of brainstorming groups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, pp. 368-375.
• de Groot, A. (1965) Thought and choice in chess. Mouton, The Hague.
• Dirkse-Hulscher, S., Talen, A., and Kester, M. (2007) Het Grote Werkvormenboek, Boom Uitgevers, Amsterdam.
• Ericsson, K., A, and Lehmann, A. C., (2011) “Expertise”, in Encyclopedia of Creativity: Second Edition, eds. Runco, M. A. and Pritzker S.R., London, UK: Academic Press, 2011, Vol 1. pp. 488-496.
• Gray, D., Brown, S., and Macanufo, J. (2010) Gamestorming, A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers, O’Reilly, California. 
• Kaufman, J. C., and Beghetto, R. A., (2009) “Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity”, Review of General Psychology, 13, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
• Leonard, D. A., and Sensiper, S. (1998) “The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation”, California Management Review, 40, No. 3, pp. 112-132.
• Rhodes, M., (1961) “An analysis of creativity” Phi Delta Kappan, 42, No. 7, pp. 305-310.
• Runco, M. A., (1994) Problem Finding, Problem Solving, and Creativity, Ablex Publishing Corporation, New Jersey.
• Runco, M. A. and Pritzker, S. R., eds. (2011) Encyclopedia of Creativity, 2nd edition, Academic Press, London.
• Sawyer, K., (2012) Explaning Creativity, the Science of Human Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Vartisan, O., Bristol, A. S., and Kaufman J. C. eds. (2013) Neuroscience of Creativity, The MIT Press, Massachussetts.
• Weisberg, R. W., (2006) Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention and the Arts. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey.