CO-CREATION

v
uv

HOW MUCH DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT CREATIVITY?

We know a lot about creativity in individuals but very little about
creativity shared between people. [8] The matrix in Figure 3 distin-
guishes between individual and collective creativity across three levels
of context that could affect the output of creativity: the socio-cultural
space, the physical environment, and the space of tools and materials.
The size of the splat indicates the amount of research in each of the
cells. We know the most about individual creativity in the socio-cultural
space, followed by individual creativity in the physical environment. The
other four cells are largely unexplored. (But see Sanders [8] for more
information on these four cells).

There is not much research at all on collective creativity. There is some,
such as socio-technical environments to support “social creativity” in
urban planning, collaborative learning, and collaborative software
design. [3] But there’s not much more than that. And there’s not much
research about the impact of tools and materials on creativity, although
this is an area that | have explored in practice and described in a book
called Convivial Toolbox. [7]

SOURCE OF INSPIRATION:

TRANSFORMATIONAL GROUP EXPERIENCES

Since we don’t have much to draw on from the published research on
the impact of spaces, places and materials on creativity, it makes sense
to look for other sources of inspiration.

Renee Levi [5] studied transformational group experiences and found,
unexpectedly, that the “place or space in which magical moments in
groups happened was identified by over half of the study’s participants
as influencing their felt shift from a collection of individuals to a true

FIGURE 2. Collective creativity

collective able to think and work together.” This finding was surprising
to Levi in that she did not anticipate it, nor did she ask about it. She
explored extraordinary group experiences further [5] and found the
following qualities to be important.

* The place is distant from people’s daily lives.

* There are welcoming elements of the facility (e.g., long entrance
roads, people to greet you).

* The main meeting room is the right size and shape.

* There are places for sitting and walking side by side.

* The space contains symbols (e.g., objects or materials) that can be
called upon to evoke meaning.

¢ There are open interior spaces with both public and private spaces
available within them.

+ The windows offer views of nature.

¢ Natural materials have been used in construction.

* The space contains elements that remind people of home.

* The food is fresh and healthy.

* There are opportunities for people to explore and challenge themselves.

Levi’s research covered many other qualities of transformative spaces.
The list above describes only the physical environmental attributes.

ANOTHER SOURCE OF INSPIRATION:

REGGIO EMILIA PRESCHOOL

Inspiration comes also from alternative approaches for the education

of very young children: Waldorf, Reggio Emilia and Montessori. [2]The
Reggio Emilia approach is explicit about the environments and materials
needed to scaffold the child’s learning. In fact, Reggio Emilia practi-
tioners refer to the environment and the materials available in it as the