Search

Creativity manifests through abstraction, the linking of previously unrelated or disparate information or variables initiating the emergence of a novel concept or idea. This process of novel thought can occur in many areas, from creative ideation in the visual arts, literature or music to novel technical concepts in fields such as engineering, mathematics and science. “Arts” creativity vs cognitive definitions of creativity are a primary basis of creativity research. However, due to varying definitions and operationalisations of creativity in neuroscience and cognitive psychology research, it is difficult to determine if all studies of creativity are measuring the same thing (Piffer, 2012). Therefore, it is important to determine if there is a relationship between the cognitive outcome measures and creativity, on studies approaching creativity from different perspectives. There is evidence that artists, and people who score highly on indices of creativity have more dense and abundant interhemispheric connections throughout the corpus collosum, as well as increased frontal lobe white matter (Durante & Dunson, 2018; Schlegel et al, 2015; Takeuchi et al, 2010). Theoretically, this should allow for faster processing of information and an increased problem-solving ability, both of which also impact on memory, executive and attentional functions (Kane & Engle, 2002), however the mapping of the neural basis of creativity is often only theoretically associated with neuropsychological cognitive domains based on commonly associated brain regions, rather than having those domains specifically tested and correlated with neuroimaging or neurophysiological findings. Cognitive correlates of creativity have been investigated in many studies however, not in a comprehensive manner and with widely varying methodology. Many studies use creativity as the cognitive outcome rather than neuropsychological cognitive domains such as attention, memory, executive function, processing speed and visuo-spatial function (Ritter & Mostert, 2017; Scott et al., 2004; Vally et al., 2019). A study examining creativity training in university students after a 13-week training course, investigated the effects of the training on cognitive creativity tests, with improvements found in executive function, yet did not measure other neuropsychological cognitive domains (Vally et al, 2019). Additionally, only one subtest of the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS), the Colour Word Interference Test (CWIT), was administered to determine performance on executive function (EF) which is not sufficient to give an accurate representation of executive function (Lippa & Davis, 2010). Due to the lack of a comprehensive review in this area, it is difficult to assess whether the results of these measures correlate with the results of other measures of executive function when determining relationships between improvements in cognitive creativity and executive function. Another study examining the clinical use of creativity training in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by Fusi et al (2019) looked at pre and post-test results for memory (single word), attention (selective, divided, and alternate), executive function (abstract thinking, planning), visuo-spatial function and an overall estimated cognitive status. While they have examined cognitive outcomes more thoroughly than previous studies, the methodology is still lacking a robust assessment of comprehensive cognitive function, as it is still only assessing four out of five cognitive domains in addition to creativity using limited tests. It is clear from a narrative review of the literature, that a synthesis of creativity research is necessary to determine how we should be best measuring creativity in neuroscience research, and what the main cognitive correlates are as determined by neuropsychological testing, rather than using the measure of creativity as a cognitive domain in itself or theorising the cognitive domains based on associated brain regions.

The aim of this chapter is the introduction of two new concepts, ‘balancing constraints’ and ‘the sweet spot of creativity’, as promising new paths for creativity research. This is motivated by the fact that creativity research shows a growing interest in the fundamental entwinement of constraints and creativity, with skillful and innovative handling of constraints seen as a prerequisite for apt creative performance. Based on a brief review of current disparate conceptualizations of constraints as both enablers and restrainers of creative activities, we begin by proposing the unifying concept ‘creativity constraints’ to help establish common terminological ground. Since the presence of constraints change over time, we suggest the term ‘constrainedness’ to articulate this total constraint intensity at a given time. This allows us to introduce our main contribution, the concept ‘the sweet spot’, to address the salient situations where the creative practitioner can be said to experience the ‘right’ level of constrainedness conducive to optimum creative performance. We then proceed to consider how the sweet spot can be attained by balancing constraints, i.e., by manipulating the intensity of constrainedness. More concretely, this means by hardening or softening the constraints at hand, resulting in a higher or lower level of constrainedness. Finally, we discuss how future studies can employ and inform these new concepts, which we see as potentially rich for cross-disciplinary creativity research focusing on the essential entwinement of constraints and creativity.

In Engineering Education (EE) there is a growing emphasis on providing students with skills and competences within innovation and entrepreneurship. This development has emerged from an identified need for establishment of new enterprises, creation of new possibilities for employment and to contribute to enhanced growth. Engineers are considered to have a key position in this development, and many engineering challenges call for new solutions. Creativity is a prerequisite for the ability to combine present knowledge into new solutions. Hence, creativity is an important subset in innovation. This development gives reasons to reconsider the content in EE and how it is taught. If creativity and innovation are the new key components in academic training of engineers it is also necessary to embrace openness to collaboration and multidisciplinary, holistic views on real life complex problems, and design competences in EE [1]. Still it is well known that there is inertia in Engineering Education to develop new structures and traditions in teaching and learning [2]. In the whole education system there is a growing interest in creative engagement of pupils and students, and the body of research in the area is growing rapidly. Research in this field has an emphasis on the role of the teacher in facilitating creativity, while the question of how to train teachers in teaching creativity is less emphasized [3]. How do we teach creativity to those how are going to teach creativity in EE? At the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) a mandatory teacher training program for new faculty has in its present design been successfully held since 2004. Different approaches to fostering teachers? beliefs of creativity and innovation as teaching methods have been explored in the programme, based on approaches like the ones described in [4]. Based on qualitative surveys and interviews this paper will discuss how the programme influence teachers? beliefs about 1) creativity in teaching and learning, 2) view on creativity as an important engineering skill, and 3) desire to emphasise creativity in their own teaching. The results indicate that while new faculty like to master a traditional way to teach at university, some new faculty is convinced by elements of the course material and thus display another behaviour ? embracing new perspectives in EE and being more open to include creativity as a part of their teaching.

The presented study utilizes data collected from an extensive real world concept selection process in new product development (NPD), to investigate whether department specific dominant logics and competences influence the selections made by a marketing department, and what might be driving this logic. The study specifically investigates the impact of the departmental viewpoint onto idea selection in the innovation process, by comparing the selections made by the marketing department (n=31) with those of R&D (n=25) and company executives (n=8). In the NPD project seven concepts were screened for continuation through an individual pairwise comparison, to test eight hypotheses all based on h0: There is no difference between the innovations selected by marketing, R&D, and executive groups. Through an analysis of the between-department variance h0 was rejected (F(12, 366)= 2.312, p

Constraints play a vital role as both restrainers and enablers in innovation processes by governing what the creative agent/s can and cannot do, and what the output can and cannot be. Notions of constraints are common in creativity research, but current contributions are highly dispersed due to no overall conceptual framing or shared terminology. This lack of unity hinders overt opportunities for cross-disciplinary interchange. We argue that an improved understanding of constraints in creativity holds a promising potential for advancements in creativity research across domains and disciplines. Here, we give an overview of the growing, but incohesive body of research into creativity and constraints, which leads us to introduce ‘creativity constraints’ as a unifying concept to help bridge these disjoint contributions to facilitate cross- disciplinary interchange. Finally, we suggest key topics and sub-concepts, including ‘late’, ‘self-imposed’, and ‘continua of creativity constraints’, to inform future cross-disciplinary work on creativity constraints.

The relationship between creativity and constraints is often described in the literature either in rather imprecise, general concepts or in relation to very specific domains. Cross-domain and cross-disciplinary takes on how the handling of constraints influences creative activities are rare. In this paper, we explore these particular issues in two creative domains: art and engineering design. These domains vary so greatly in terms of number and types of constraints in play that we argue for considering them as opposite extremes of a continuum of levels of creative freedom. By comparing two case studies of Danish cutting-edge proponents of creative expertise thus exemplifying each domain, this preliminary exploration mainly focuses on similarities in how such successful professionals work with constraints to frame their creative process and ensure its progression toward the final outcome. Our main observations suggest that despite vast differences between the two domains, significant patterns and strategies reoccur. From a list of nine such similarities identified, four patterns are analyzed across the two domains in more detail as a contribution to encourage further advancement of cross-disciplinary research into the ambiguous role of constraints in creativity.