The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible

Living Edition
| Editors: Vlad Petre Glăveanu (Editor-in-Chief)

Collaborative Creativity

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_85-1
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

In this entry we suggest that a shared view of the possible has accompanied the development of successful creative collaboration both in modern time, in the historic past, and from the viewpoint of deep history. The concept of the possible in collaborative creativity is distributed, in rather than predicated on an individual, at times this possible is unknown by all until the moment it becomes actualized. The possible, when considered in this way, becomes a relational phenomenon existing in a shared future both inspiring collaboration and also inspired by it. This entry will start by drawing a distinction between creativity in groups and collaborative creativity before moving to examine how a distributed sense of the possible drives commonly collaborative ventures such as in music or science and how collaboration unfolds across multiple time scales. Finally, we will move to an aspect of creativity more rarely considered from a psychological perspective – that is how creativity appears in the archaeological record. The study of creativity should have great appeal to prehistorians: The remarkable creativity of our species appears to be one of the defining features that separates humans from the rest of the animal world, but an individualist view of creativity has stymied previous study. Our review of the current evidence suggests that the fundamental building blocks of the development of human creativity lie in demographic and neural changes relating to social engagement. This points to the tantalizing suggestion that all creativity should be considered as collaborative.

Keywords

Collaboration Deep History Distributed Creativity Demography Social intelligence Extended Mind Entanglement 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Andersen, H. (2016). Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botella, M., Glăveanu, V. P., Zenasni, F., Storme, M., Myszkowski, N., Wolff, M., & Lubart, T. (2013). How artists create: Creative process and multivariate factors. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conard, N. J., Serangeli, J., Böhner, U., Starkovich, B. M., Miller, C. E., Urban, B., & Van Kolfschoten, T. (2015). Excavations at Schöningen and paradigm shifts in human evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 89, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.10.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. d’Errico, F., & Stringer, C. B. (2011). Evolution, revolution or saltation scenario for the emergence of modern cultures? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1060–1069.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahl, M. (2016). Authors of the mind. Journal of Early Modern Studies, 5.  https://doi.org/10.13128/jems-2279-7149-18087.
  7. Finkel, M., & Barkai, R. (2018). The Acheulean handaxe technological persistence: A case of preferred cultural conservatism? Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 84, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2018.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finlayson, C. (2019). The smart neanderthal: Cave art, bird catching, and the cognitive revolution (New product edition). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Forss, S. I. F., Willems, E., Call, J., & van Schaik, C. P. (2016). Cognitive differences between orang-utan species: A test of the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Scientific Reports, 6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30516.
  10. Froese, T. (2019). Making sense of the chronology of Paleolithic cave painting from the perspective of material engagement theory. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glăveanu, V. P. (2011). How are we creative together? Comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural answers. Theory & Psychology, 21, 473–492.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310372152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glăveanu, V. P. (2018). The possible as a field of inquiry. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14(3), 519–530.  https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i3.1725.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Glăveanu, V. P., Lubart, T., Bonnardel, N., Botella, M., Biaisi, P.-M. de, Desainte-Catherine, M., … Zenasni, F. (2013). Creativity as action: Findings from five creative domains. Frontiers in Psychology, 4.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00176.
  16. Henshilwood, C. S., Dubreuil, B., Coolidge, F. L., Wynn, T., Corballis, M. C., Davidson, I., … Rossano, M. (2011). The still bay and Howiesons Poort, 77–59 ka: Symbolic material culture and the evolution of the mind during the African middle stone age. Current Anthropology, 52, 361–400.  https://doi.org/10.1086/660022.
  17. Hovers, E., & Belfer-Cohen, A. (2006). “Now you see it, now you don’t” – Modern human behavior in the middle Paleolithic. In Transitions before the transition (pp. 295–304). Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenny, A. (2014). ‘Collaborative creativity’ within a jazz ensemble as a musical and social practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein, R. G. (2000). Archeology and the evolution of human behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 9, 17–36.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(2000)9:1<17::AID-EVAN3>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, S. L. (2012). Emergent patterns of creativity and innovation in early technologies. In Developments in Quaternary Sciences (Vol. 16, pp. 69–87).  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53821-5.00006-3.
  21. Lamb, D., & Easton, S. M. (1984). Multiple discovery: The pattern of scientific progress. Trowbridge: Avebury.Google Scholar
  22. March, P. L. (2019). Playing with clay and the uncertainty of agency. A Material Engagement Theory perspective. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McBrearty, S., & Brooks, A. S. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution, 39, 453–563.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2000.0435.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mithen, S. J. (Ed.). (1998). Creativity in human evolution and prehistory. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35, 69–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2004). How collaboration in creative work impacts identity and motivation. In D. Miell & K. Littleton (Eds.), Collaborative creativity (pp. 11–26). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  27. Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2016). Innovation in the collective brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371, 20150192.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ness, I. J., & Riese, H. (2015). Openness, curiosity and respect: Underlying conditions for developing innovative knowledge and ideas between disciplines. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 29–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Powell, A., Shennan, S., & Thomas, M. G. (2009). Late pleistocene demography and the appearance of modern human behavior. Science, 324, 1298–1301.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rocca, E., Copeland, S., & Ralph Edwards, I. (2019). Pharmacovigilance as scientific Discovery: An Argument for Trans-Disciplinarity. Drug Safety, 42, 1115.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-019-00826-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross, W., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (2018). For a good Poet’s made, as well as born: The relational ontology of Shakespeare’s genius. Creativity. Theories – Research-Applications, 5, 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ross, W., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., & Glăveanu, V. (2020). Collaboration. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia of creativity. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  33. Sawyer, R. K. (1992). Improvisational creativity: An analysis of jazz performance. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). The mechanisms of emergence. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34, 260–282.Google Scholar
  35. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34, 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sawyer, R. K. (2010). Individual and group creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 366–380). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sawyer, R. K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seddon, F. (2004). Empathetic creativity: The product of empathetic attunement. In D. Miell & K. Littleton (Eds.), Collaborative creativity (pp. 65–79). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  39. Simonton, D. (2019). The sociocultural context of exceptional creativity: Historiometric studies. In I. Lebuda & V. Glaveanu (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of social creativity research. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Underdown, S. J., & Smith, S. J. (2019). Lifting the gloomy curtain of time past: Tracing the identity of the first cognitively modern hominin in deep history. In D. Shankland (Ed.), Dunbar’s number. London: Sean Kingston Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Wilson, R. A. (2005). Collective memory, group minds, and the extended mind thesis. Cognitive Processing, 6(4), 227–236.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-005-0012-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKingston UniversityKingston upon ThamesUK
  2. 2.Department of Social SciencesOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK
  3. 3.BIMM InstituteBrightonUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Ingunn Johanne Ness
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology, Centre for the Sciences of Learning and Technology (SLATE)University of BergenBergenNorway