Advertisement

Studying Creativity as a Social Process: The Use of Subjective Cameras

  • Vlad Petre GlăveanuEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture book series (PASCC)

Abstract

The study of creativity as a social phenomenon needs to take into account process and context. Subjective cameras, small devices placed at eye level, recording video and audio the participant’s “first person perspective” in the ongoing activity, represents a useful technological and methodological innovation within creativity research. This method is particular valuable for the study of “social creativity” since it enables researchers to explore, within creative action, moments of repositioning, of dialogue between perspectives, and it also cultivates reflexivity. This chapter introduces first the sociocultural theory behind the use of subjective cameras, then the methodological steps specific for conducting “subjective evidence-based ethnographies”. In the end, final considerations on the relation between theory and method within social creativity research are offered.

Keywords

Creativity Subjective cameras Video Position Perspective Reflexivity 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Vol. 1). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, M., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Cordelois, A. (2010). Using digital technology for collective ethnographic observation: An experiment on ‘coming home’. Social Science Information, 49(3), 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gillespie, A. (2005). GH Mead: Theorist of the social act. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35(1), 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillespie, A., & Martin, J. (2014). Position exchange theory: A socio-material basis for discursive and psychological positioning. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Creativity in context: The ecology of creativity evaluations and practices in an artistic craft. Psychological Studies, 55(4), 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Creativity and folk art: A study of creative action in traditional craft. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(2), 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(3), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glăveanu, V. P., Gillespie, A., & Karwowski, M. (2018). Are people working together inclined towards practicality? A process analysis of creative ideation in individuals and dyads. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. online first.Google Scholar
  12. Glăveanu, V. P., Gillespie, A., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.). (2015). Rethinking creativity: Perspectives from cultural psychology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Glăveanu, V. P., & Lahlou, S. (2012). Through the creator’s eyes: Using the subjective camera to study craft creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 347–359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jääskeläinen, R. (2010). Think aloud protocol. In Y. Gambier & L. Van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1, pp. 371–373). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  18. Lahlou, S. (2011). How can we capture the subject’s perspective? An evidence-based approach for the social scientist. Social Science Information, 50(3–4), 607–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lahlou, S., Le Bellu, S., & Boesen-Mariani, S. (2015). Subjective evidence based ethnography: Method and applications. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(2), 216–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le Bellu, S., Lahlou, S., Nosulenko, V., & Samoylenko, E. (2016). Studying activity in manual work: A framework for analysis and training. Le travail humain, 79(1), 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lubart, T. (2003). Psychologie de la créativité (The psychology of creativity). Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  22. Lubart, T., Besançon, M., & Barbot, B. (2011). Evaluation du Potentiel Créatif (EPoC), Evaluation of Potential Creativity. Paris: Hogrefe France.Google Scholar
  23. Martin, J. (2006). Reinterpreting internalization and agency through GH Mead’s perspectival realism. Human Development, 49(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rieken, J. (2013). Making situated police practice visible: A study examining professional activity for the maintenance of social control with video data from the field (Doctoral dissertation). The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).Google Scholar
  26. Runco, M. A. (2009). Parsimonious creativity and its measurement. In Measuring creativity. Proceedings for the conference “Can creativity be measured”. European Comission Joint Research Center. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  27. Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simonton, D. K. (1990). Psychology, science, and history: An introduction to historiometry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3(2), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Torrance, E. P., Ball, O. E., & Safter, H. T. (2003). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  31. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). In R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), The essential Vygotsky. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Ward, T. B. (2001). Creative cognition, conceptual combination, and the creative writing of Stephen R. Donaldson. American Psychologist, 56(4), 350–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Webster University GenevaBellevueSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations