Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T10:04:15.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The imperative of assessing negative creativity in design: a multi-dimensional approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Petra Badke-Schaub ,
Katja Thoring ,
Harald Schaub  and
Roland M. Mueller
Petra Badke-Schaub*
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Katja Thoring
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich, Germany
Harald Schaub
Affiliation:
IABG Ottobrunn, Germany
Roland M. Mueller
Affiliation:
Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany
*
petra.badke-schaub@gmx.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The paper emphasizes the need to consider negative aspects of creativity, especially in design, where it can have significant societal impacts. It calls for a more comprehensive view of creativity that includes both positive and negative effects and proposes a research approach to assess the potential negative consequences of creative work.

Keywords

negative creativityresearch paradigmdesign educationresearch methodologies and methodsdesign creativity
Type
Human Behaviour and Design Creativity
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 875 - 884
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2024.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Westview Press.Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P., Daalhuizen, J., & Roozenburg, N. (2011). Towards a Designer-Centred Methodology: Descriptive Considerations and Prescriptive Reflections. In Birkhofer, H. (Ed.), The Future of Design Methodology (pp. 181–197). Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-615-3_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P., & Schaub, H. (2021). Human Behavior, Roles, and Processes. In Maier, A., Oehmen, J., & Vermaas, P. E. (Eds.), Handbook of Engineering Systems Design (pp. 1–36). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_32-1Google Scholar
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Ends and means of experimental aesthetics. Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue Canadienne de Psychology, 26(4), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, K., & James, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, D. H. (Ed.). (2010). The Dark Side of Creativity (Illustrated Edition). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperCollins.Google Scholar
De Alencar, E. M. L. S., & De Bruno-Faria, M. F. (1997). Characteristics of on Organizational Environment which Stimulate and Inhibit Creativity*. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(4), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00799.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörner, D. (1990). The logic of failure. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences, 327(1241), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1990.0089Google ScholarPubMed
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social Undermining in the Workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenman, R. (2010). Creativity and crime: How criminals use creativity to succeed. In Cropley, D. H. (Ed.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 204–217). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Parliament and the Council. (2006). Machinery Directive: Directive 2006/42/EC. Official Journal of the EU, Brussels.Google Scholar
Ford, F. A. (1999). Modeling the environment: An introduction to system dynamics models of environmental systems. Island Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (2011). Organizational justice: The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. In APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 271–327). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-008Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1962). Potentiality for Creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 6(3), 87–90.. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698626200600307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecht, D. K. (2010). Imagining the bomb: Robert Oppenheimer, nuclear weapons, and the assimilation of technological innovation. In Cropley, D. (Ed.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 72–90). Cambridge University Press New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 247–263.Google Scholar
James, K., & Taylor, A. (2010). Positive creativity and negative creativity (and unintended consequences). In Cropley, D. (Ed.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 33–56). Cambridge University Press New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapoor, H., & Khan, A. (2016). The Measurement of Negative Creativity: Metrics and Relationships. Creativity Research Journal, 28(4), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1229977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2019). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, M. (1961). An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310. JSTOR.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (2018). Authentic creativity: Mechanisms, definitions, and empirical efforts. In Sternberg, R. J. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 246–263). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108185936.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (2020). Encyclopedia of creativity. Academic press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Positive creativity. In Kostic, A. & Chadee, D. (Eds.), Current Research in Positive Psychology (pp. 33–42). Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Thoring, K., Gonçalves, M., Mueller, R. M., Badke-Schaub, P., & Desmet, P. (2017). Inspiration Space: Towards a theory of creativity-supporting learning environments. Proceedings of the Design Management Academy (DMA), Hong Kong, CN, 5, 1539–1561. https://doi.org/10.21606/dma.2017.19Google Scholar
Thoring, K., Gonçalves, M., Mueller, R. M., Desmet, P., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2021). The Architecture of Creativity: Toward a Causal Theory of Creative Workspace Design. International Journal of Design, 15(2), 17–36.Google Scholar
Thoring, K., Mueller, R. M., & Klöckner, H. W. (2023). Mind the Future Gap: Introducing the FOD Framework for Future-Oriented Design. Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/103347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoring, K., Mueller, R. M., Lecuna, A., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2023). A Framework of Design Method Corroboration.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoring, K., Mueller, R. M., Lecuna, A., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2023). A Framework of Design Method Corroboration. in Bui, T. X. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 56th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2023 (S. 5156-5165)Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1995). Insights about creativity: Questioned, rejected, ridiculed, ignored. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar