TechTrends

, Volume 58, Issue 5, pp 53–61 | Cite as

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

A 2013 AECT Research & Theory Division Invited Paper
Article

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.

Keywords

creativity innovation collaborative creativity collaborative learning group creativity communities of innovation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 77-87.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 592-601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.Google Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carzo, R., & Yanouzas, J. N. (1969). Effects of flat and tall organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2), 178-191. doi:10.2307/2391096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  15. Chance, T. (2005). The hacker ethic and meaningful work. Retrieved from http://www.acrewoods.net/free-culture/the-hacker-ethic-and-meaningful-work
  16. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The innovator’s DNA. Harvard Educational Review, 87(12), 61-67.Google Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gelderen, M. Van. (2010). Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education. Training, 52(8), 710–721.Google Scholar
  24. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  27. Hennessey, B. A. (1989). The effect of extrinsic constraints on children’s creativity when using a computer. Creativity Research Journal, 2(3), 151-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Himanen, P. (2001). The hacker ethic: A radical approach to the philosophy of business. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  29. Howkins, J. (2002). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. London, UK: Penguin UK.Google Scholar
  30. Jordan, T., & Taylor, P. (1998). A sociology of hackers. Sociological Review, 46(4), 757–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 645-650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Livingston, L. (2010). Teaching creativity in higher education. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 59-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.Google Scholar
  48. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  51. Putman, V. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(1), 29-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research. doi:10.3102/0034654312457429 Google Scholar
  54. Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. A Review of General Semantics, 11(4), 249–259.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sawyer, R. K. (2006b). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148–165. doi:10.1177/0305735606061850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tepper, S. J. (2002). Creative assets and the changing economy. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 32(2), 159-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Torrance, E. P. (2002). The manifesto: A guide to developing a creative career. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm
  67. Volberda. (1996). Recruiting Q&A: IDEO.Retrieved, from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2001-01-10/recruiting-q-and-a-ideo.
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations