27.10.2011DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, INNOVATIONS AND CREATIVITY IN THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROSPECT
Expert of the Center for Information Studies. “Noravank” Foundation
Knowledge has been a basic value in all cultures and at all times. In modern societies, which are called information, the connection between knowledge and social processes has become direct and tangible1. There may be different opinions about the age of knowledge dominance. E.g. we can dispute whether the intensive production of knowledge is the monopoly of the information society, or there is no great difference between the ages in the aspect of creating something new and it is not the amount of knowledge that has grown but the information about it. Or whether it is possible that the peculiarity of the age is not making point of the knowledge but changing the ways of receiving and spreading information. It can be noticed that the picture has changed in the aspect of the subjects taking part in creation, possessing and spreading of information. Despite all the aforementioned it is obvious that innovation and progress had never been discussed so eagerly before, thus acquiring the signs of speeding-up. Classical convertion knowledge, which is acquired and imparted, is not enough any more for the claims on deveopment and now primary importance is assigned to the creativity, ideas of innovation, in which the intellectual potential is directed rather to the production and testing of the knowledge, than to acquiring and reproduction; new approaches which are not compulsory but supposedly effective are welcomed. Such a situation is promoted by the fact that the new times are characterized by uncertainty and volatility of the environment (social and physical), which demand flexibility of perception and actions, alternative definitions of tolerance. It is not a mere chance that the notion of innovation has penetrated from the engineering into social sciences and today it is a necessary component of the effective projects concerning social changes, management, reforms of social structures. Innovation is a broader notion than simply mechanical invention or scientific discovery. It includes a wide range – from the modernization of agricultural means to the social engineering (reforming of social subjects, processes and structures). There are innovation technologists in areas of science, education and governance. In the states, which carry out clearly elaborated policy of science, the innovation is mentioned as topical direction in the aspect of the political, economic structures, state priorities, purposes of the educational institutions; it is included in the names courses of many social sciences2. Innovation is closely connected with creativity which arouses eager interest. It can also be found in almost all the leading western universities and it is not only studied but it is taught either. The courses on creativity are mainly included in three areas of specialization – psychology and education, business and engineering and technologies. Creativity is a mandatory part of the programmes of the universities with high ratings; in Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Connecticut and others the programmes are headed by internationally celebrated and leading specialists in the spheres of creativity theory and technologies3.
In the spirit of the modern conceptions of the periods of civilizational development and power of knowledge (Risman, Yashida, Toflerner and others), the Japanese “Nomura” Institute singled out in its conception four ages of economic development – agricultural, industrial, information and the 4th age is creative (to which a smooth transition is now taking place), i.e. the age of constant innovations. Expounding this idea D. Pink calls the last period conceptual; he considers the creators and “empathizers” the bearers of that4.
Today the studies of the creativity and practical elaborations directed to its development are one of the main areas of progressive psychology. In fact the studies of creativity are directed to reveal inner psychological (cognitive, emotional) mechanisms of innovative or heuristic activity. Against the background of quick social changes and diversification of information, creativity is gradually becoming more important human ability. In this context we can get an insight into knowledge-social development situation by the consideration of the role given to creativity in different societies.
Perception of creativity and components of creative process
Creativity can generally be defined as a mental process, during which new ideas and concepts are generated or new ties between existing ideas and concepts are set. It is closely connected with imagination (more than with thinking) process and related to the need of a human being for discovery. As a result of statistical researches of the founder of psychometric studies of creativity J. Gilford and later I. Torens, creativity was singled out as a separate aspect of human mental activity abck in 1960s, thus being separated from the intelligence quotient5. The notion of creativity is closely interconnected and sometimes it is even used as a synonym of divergent thinking, i.e. generating several possible solutions to one set problem. M. Mumford, summarizing the scientific perceptions of creativity, considers production of innovative, useful results as a key characteristic of creative process. Let us mention that such a product may be in form of instrument, piece of art, as well as programme directed to the settlement of the social problems and etc. Linda Naiman6 characterizes creativity as an act of implementation of innovative ideas thus finding that for considering something as creative two components are needed – idea and implementation. This is the difference between creativity and imagination. Thus, for common person creativity can be considered as any manifestation of innovative approach, from academic aspect the production of the intellect should be characterized not only from the point of view of originality but also by reasonability and ability to be implemented. Even more, creativity is directly connected with the reasonability of the human vital activity. It is, according to G. Valas, a characteristic inherited from evolutionary process and it allows people adapting themselves to quickly changing environment7. Thus the creative production is not simply new, but it is of pragmatic value either. And the value and importance of the innovative idea is a result of social evaluation and it depends on preferences of the given age and society. In order to distinguish between creativity “for no reason” and effective creativity, which has a social impact, the theorists also single out creativity of historical importance (h-creativity) and personal creativity (p-creativity) or correspondingly Big C and Little C8.
While speaking about the connection between creativity and social progress greater importance is attached to boosting mostly this big, social creativity “C” factor, though the h-creativity is acquired through the development of the creative thinking in persons (such an element is a characteristic of organization of the American higher education system). Let us also mention that though the social usefulness of the creativity is an asserted viewpoint, till now the social attitude to this subject is still ambiguous and there is some criticism connected with exaggerated evaluation of the creativity.
Thus, it is already outlined that different degrees of importance are attached to innovation and creativity in different societies. And it is founded on both social-political and cultural-psychological differences.
Creativity and its consequence in different cultures
While speaking about the cultural peculiarities of creativity we first of all mean not the cultural differences of creativity as a kind of the level of perceptiveness, but as differences in its comprehension and evaluation, which derive from the differences in priority cultural values and from the purpose, to which the acquisition of knowledge serves. Thus, the American concept of creativity is based on the strict pragmatism and successive boosting of creativity is directly put within the context of technical and social progress. Simply said, creativity is good not because it is beautiful but because it is useful and it is useful because it brings to pragmatic result, i.e. innovations which help you to rule the world. This is seeming paradox when such a spontaneous phenomenon as creative activity is arranged and directed by non-spontaneous efforts. The importance of creativity is so much stressed in official, academic and everyday discourse that in consequence it was stuck in an average representative of the American society (especially those receiving education), who should not necessarily be creative, as a part of self-characteristics and self-perception. Thus, even if the student is not notable for original thinking and fineness of intellect, he tends to underline creativity while speaking about his educational process and education in the US in general, due to which they achieve important joint or individual results. In European tradition this awareness-raising process is deprived of such a direct pragmatism and the knowledge acquisition in itself is a purpose. Within this framework the creativity is also “for no special reason”, i.e. non-instrumental or at least it preserves the element of spontaneity. In oriental systems the notion of creativity is mostly connected with harmony, being a part of nature, and creativity is rather taken as a part of a holistic, integral process of life than as a separate sphere of activity which should be organized9. Such a drastic delimitation can of course be questioned by an example of powerful Japanese innovations, but this case deserves special scrutiny.
In whole, it is notable that those different perceptions of creativity also reflect differences in systems of values where on one side we have a progress, assessment of individual achievements, changes in natural and social environment, and on the other side we have harmony, adaptation, collectivist orientation and unconditional acceptance instead of changing.
So, though today it is more often spoken about the place and role of the knowledge in the time aspect, i.e. as the tendencies which go parallel to shifting of the civilizational ages, the variations are also possible from culture to culture, and from society to society. No matter how universal the appraisal of the knowledge and positive interest of a human being in something new are, innovation, as an integral part of progress and as an organized process is particularly characteristic of western societies or at least they managed to do it better till now. Their model deserves attention particularly because, as Grigoryants correctly mentions, the elements of information society had penetrated in all the societies despite the stage of modernization they are on10. This situation, alongside with the risks of being sidelined, opens prospects for rises and keeping pace with the whole world, in spite of the “local period" of development of the country and its position. The implementation of such goals firstly demands, of course, knowledge of your own resources in the aspect of collective creativity. There are researches devoted to the creativity in Armenia, but they are not directed to the study of the collective creativity. There are no social and psychological studies devoted to the group creative processes and inner and situational factors promoting them, modes of cooperation within those processes, their efficiency, the influence of the cultural, social and political contexts on the creativity and number of other aspects.
The cultural differences in appraisal of knowledge can be observed while considering not only creativity but other notions of intellectual sphere either. Thus, all the cultures may make a point of development but they can mean different things under that development. Thus in Armenian adjective “զարգացած” characterizes large-minded, erudite, educated person, while in English “developed” does not have this meaning and it is not used for people and instead it has a kind of “technological” meaning. All this allows singling out knowledge in the light of general notion of knowledge-value as value-facility and value-goal. In this stage it is difficult to say which of the approaches is more characteristic of our society. We can make only forward estimates by mentioning that it has shifted from value-goal to value-end in itself but it has not acquired the status of value-facility yet. On the other hand recently different initiatives on knowledge and creativity (there is a definite unintentional synchronism between them, which contains potential for result-oriented synergy) has alternated each other fast. In particular, educational institutions have been established where innovations and creativity are inscribed in the goals and directions of their activity; for the first time creativity is announced as a collective aim (e.g. Tumo, Ayb School). Instead of forecasts on viability and efficiency of those initiatives it can be at least stated that those are not isolated cases but a part of general tendency which seems to be naturally enabled. This positive tendency is in accord with the circumstance that creativity, as a mechanism of innovations and tasks solutions, is rather collective than individual action which has a characteristics of cooperation. Thereat, within-group diversity (including approaches) and organization of optimal complementarity of those diverse approaches are important aspects for that collective creative process.
1 Գիտելիքն ու իշխանությունը տեղեկատվական հասարակության մեջ (2006), Գ.Գրիգորյանց, Մաս 1, Է.Թոֆլեր, Մաս 2, Երևան, Զանգակ-97։
2 http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/pdf/allourfutures.pdf
3 http://www.cct.umb.edu/fangqi.pdf
4 Pink, D.H. (2005). A Whole New Mind: Moving from the information age into the conceptual age. Allen & Unwin
5 Mark A., Runco and Steven R. Pritzer (1999). Encyclopedia of Creativity, Vol. 1. Academic Press.
6 Naiman L., What is creativity, http://www.scribd.com/doc/45086576/What-is-Creativity.
7 Simonton, D.K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity, Oxford University Pres.
8 James C., Kaufman and Robert J. Sternberg (2011). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press; http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/courses/creative-systems/papers/maggie/nutshell.pdf
9 http://www.westga.edu/~stpp/JTPP_Aticles/26-2/THE1210.pdf. Retrieved 23 October 2010
10 Գիտելիքն ու իշխանությունը տեղեկատվական հասարակության մեջ (2006), Գ.Գրիգորյանց, Մաս,1, Է.Թոֆլեր, Մաս 2, Երևան, Զանգակ-97։
Return
Another materials of author