Skip to main content
Log in

Communities of innovation: Individual, group, and organizational characteristics leading to greater potential for innovation

A 2013 AECT Research & Theory Division Invited Paper

TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I will explain what I see as some of the core attributes of Communities of Innovation, or communities fostering collaborative creativity, and what we have learned from the research literature about each attribute. There is a critical need to design learning environments that foster creative thinking in students, particularly in the area of collaborative creativity. Many of the current problems and challenges graduates will face in society and industry are too large to be faced alone. However, the research and pedagogical understanding of how to develop skills in collaborative creativity is still underdeveloped. In seeking to understand what collaborative creativity would look like in education, I reviewed the literature on organizational and social creativity, along with social learning theory, to develop a framework of characteristics common to most environments that foster collaborative creativity in students (West, 2009). This framework describing Communities of Innovation explains some of the similar characteristics at the individual, group, and organizational levels of innovative communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 77-87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M.A.. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, A. (2008). The fragility of group flow: The experiences of two small groups in a middle school mathematics classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(2), 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68. doi:10.1002/job.179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 592-601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, E. (2012). Creativity and education: Why it matters. Retrieved from http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/education/pdfs/adobe-creativity-education-findings.pdf?trackingid=KFBUZ

  • Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (2006). Fostering knowledge-creating communities. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, and G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 37-60): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, C., MacDonald, R., & Carlton, L. (2003). Assessing creativity in musical compositions: Flow as an assessment tool. British Journal of Music Education, 20(3), 277–290. Retrieved from http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0265051703005448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carzo, R., & Yanouzas, J. N. (1969). Effects of flat and tall organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2), 178-191. doi:10.2307/2391096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chance, T. (2005). The hacker ethic and meaningful work. Retrieved from http://www.acrewoods.net/free-culture/the-hacker-ethic-and-meaningful-work

  • Chen, W., & You, M. (2010). Internet mediated industrial design studio course: The students ’ responses. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 151–174. doi:10.1007/s10798-008-9068-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 755–780. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9165-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A metaanalytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Docherty, M., Sutton, P., Brereton, M., & Kaplan, S. (2001). An innovative design and studio-based CS degree. Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE ’01, 33(1), 233–237. doi:10.1145/364447.364591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The innovator’s DNA. Harvard Educational Review, 87(12), 61-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, T. M. (2005). Factors influencing individual creativity in the workplace: An examination of quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 160–181. doi:10.1177/1523422305274527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelderen, M. Van. (2010). Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education. Training, 52(8), 710–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, B. A. (1989). The effect of extrinsic constraints on children’s creativity when using a computer. Creativity Research Journal, 2(3), 151-168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himanen, P. (2001). The hacker ethic: A radical approach to the philosophy of business. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howkins, J. (2002). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. London, UK: Penguin UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, T., & Taylor, P. (1998). A sociology of hackers. Sociological Review, 46(4), 757–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justesen, S. (2004). Innoversity in communities of practice. In P. M. Hildreth & C. Kimble (Eds.), Knowledge networks: Innovation through communities of practice (pp. 79-95). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L. B., & Frederiksen, L. (2006). Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Science, 17(1), 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 645-650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285-295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 285–295. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lilien, G., P. D., Morrison, K., Searls, M., Sonnack, E., & von Hippel. (2003). Performance assessment of the lead user generation process for new product development. Management Science, 48(8) 1042–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, L. (2010). Teaching creativity in higher education. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 59-62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, R., Byrne, C., & Carlton, L. (2006). Creativity and flow in musical composition: An empirical investigation. Psychology of Music, 34(3), 292–306. doi:10.1177/030573560606483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marianno, B., & West, R. E. (2014). Living on the edge: Expanding Individual Competencies in Innovative Student Teams by Developing Dynamic Expertise. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 226–246. doi:10.1177/1523422305274528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam, E., & Dawson, S. (2008). Teaching for creativity: Towards sustainable and replicable pedagogical practice. Higher Education, 56(6), 633–643. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9115-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreau, C. P., & Dahl, D. W. (2005). Designing the solution: The impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 13-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. N., & Hackett, E. J. (2012). Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. American Sociological Review, 77(1), 21–44. doi:10.1177/0003122411433763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauhus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78-89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putman, V. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(1), 29-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, E. S. (2003). The art of Unix programming. Retrieved from Addison-Wesley Professional: http://homepage.cs.uri.edu/~thenry/resources/unix_art/ch01s09.html

  • Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research. doi:10.3102/0034654312457429

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. A Review of General Semantics, 11(4), 249–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41-48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2006b). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148–165. doi:10.1177/0305735606061850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2013). Telecommuting kills creativity: What the research says about Yahoo’s new work policy. The Blog, Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-r-keith-sawyer/yahootelecommuting_b_2796243.html?utm_hp_ref=smallbusiness&ir=Small

  • Sutton, R. I., & Kelley, T. A. (1997). Creativity doesn’t require isolation: Why product designers bring visitors “backstage.” California Management Review, 40(I), 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(1), 23-47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, S. J. (2002). Creative assets and the changing economy. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 32(2), 159-168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (2002). The manifesto: A guide to developing a creative career. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44. doi:10.1007/BF02298246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm

  • Volberda. (1996). Recruiting Q&A: IDEO.Retrieved, from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2001-01-10/recruiting-q-and-a-ideo.

  • Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2009). Organizational diversity and shared vision: Resolving the paradox of exploratory and exploitative learning. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1), 86–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. E. (2009). What is shared? A framework for understanding shared innovation within communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 315–332. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9107-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Learning to design collaboratively: Participation of student designers in a community of innovation. Instructional Science, 39(6), 821–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. E., Williams, G. S., & Williams, D. D. (2013). Improving problem-based learning in creative communities through effective group evaluation. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 7(2). Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=ijpbl

  • Zaugg, H., West, R. E., Tateishi, I., & Randall, D. L. (2011). Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends, 55(1), 32-36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard E. West.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

West, R.E. Communities of innovation: Individual, group, and organizational characteristics leading to greater potential for innovation. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS 58, 53–61 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0786-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0786-x

Keywords

Navigation