The present paper outlines An Action Theory of Creativity and substantiates this approach by investigating creative expression in five different domains. We propose an action framework for the analysis of creative acts built on the assumption that creativity is a relational, inter-subjective phenomenon. This framework, drawing extensively from the work of Dewey (1934) on art as experience, is used to derive a coding frame for the analysis of interview material. The article reports findings from the analysis of 60 interviews with recognized French creators in five creative domains: art, design, science, scriptwriting, and music. Results point to complex models of action and inter-action specific for each domain and also to interesting patterns of similarity and differences between domains. These findings highlight the fact that creative action takes place not “inside” individual creators but “in between” actors and their environment. Implications for the field of educational psychology are discussed.
Dehumanizing attitudes and behaviors frequently occur in organizational settings and are often viewed as an acceptable, and even necessary, strategy for pursuing personal and organizational goals. Here I examine a number of commonly held beliefs about dehumanization and argue that there is relatively little support for them in light of the evidence emerging from social psychological and neuroscientific research. Contrary to the commonly held belief that everyday forms of dehumanization are innocent and inconsequential, the evidence shows profoundly negative consequences for both victims and perpetrators. As well, the belief that suppressing empathy automatically leads to improved problem solving is not supported by the evidence. The more general belief that empathy interferes with problem-solving receives partial support, but only in the case of mechanistic problem-solving. Overall, I question the usefulness of dehumanization in organizational settings and argue that it can be replaced by superior strategies that are ethically more acceptable and do not entail the severely negative consequences associated with dehumanization.
For working parents with school-age children, this time of year is especially chaotic. The season brings end-of-the-school-year projects, state testing, report cards, parent-teacher conferences, the transition to 10 long weeks of child care arrangements, the awkwardness of explaining to colleagues why you’re out of the office again, the need to follow up with the pediatrician about health forms for September (they’re overdue already), and the worry about whether your child will do better in math next year with a different teacher.
Your task list is endless, your stress level high. And a lot of the work and worry seems to be coming from one place: your child’s school.
Read also: Questions New Working Parents Should Ask Themselves
Conversations Every Overwhelmed Working Parent Should Have
What working parent hasn’t felt guilty about missing soccer games and piano recitals? When there are last-minute schedule changes at work or required travel to a client site, it’s normal to worry that you’re somehow permanently scarring your little one.
But how does our work affect our children’s lives? About two decades ago, in a study that surveyed approximately 900 business professionals ranging from 25 to 63 years old, across an array of industries, Drexel University’s Jeff Greenhaus and I explored the relationship between work and family life and described how these two aspects of life are both allies and enemies. In light of the deservedly increased attention we’re now paying to mental health problems in our society, it’s worth taking a fresh look at some of our findings on how the emotional lives of children — the unseen stakeholders at work — are affected by their parents’ careers. Our findings help explain what’s been observed since our original research about how children are negatively affected by their parents being digitally distracted, also known as “technoference,” and by the harmful effects of stress at work on family life.
We’d all like to be a little happier.
The problem is that much of what determines happiness is outside of our control. Some of us are genetically predisposed to see the world through rose-colored glasses, while others have a generally negative outlook. Bad things happen, to us and in the world. People can be unkind, and jobs can be tedious.
But we do have some control over how we spend our leisure time. That’s one reason why it’s worth asking which leisure time activities are linked to happiness, and which aren’t.
Innovation is a complex and multifaceted notion, sometimes difficult to explain. The category of innovation spaces includes co‐working spaces, third places, Living Labs, open labs, incubators, accelerators, hothouses, canteens, FabLabs, MakerSpaces, Tech Shops, hackerspaces, design factories, and so on. Working based on the communities’ needs and motivations is a key stage in order to overcome the obstacles of collective innovation and lay favorable foundations for the emergence of shared actions that can be converted into collective innovation projects. Organizations are multiplying the opportunities of creating collective intelligence at the service of innovation. Consequently, an innovation space must favor creativity and sharing. It must also promote individual and collective learning. Collective intelligence involves the networking of multiple types of intelligence, the combination of knowledge and competences, as well as cooperation and collaboration between them.
This paper explores the sociomateriality of creativity in everyday life. Whilst creativity research has traditionally been concerned with the intellectual and individual skills promoting creativity, such as the ability to apply divergent thinking, this author anchors creativity in social practice. It is suggested that: (1) creativity is an everyday phenomenon resulting in continual processes of “making the world;” (2) there is a close relationship between human beings and material tools in the creativity process; and (3) there is a close relationship between continuity and renewal, meaning that materials, tools, things, institutions, normative practices and “ways of doing” already in the world are taken as starting points for new creations.
New research has found that there’s actually a difference between doers — the people who just get stuff done — and procrastinators — the ones who don’t.
In the study, published in the journal Psychological Science, researchers used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to study the brains of 264 men and women. Then they filled out a survey to analyze how impulsive or decisive they were. Participants were given a score for decision-related action orientation (AOD), which essentially divided them into doers or procrastinators.
People with poor action control, the procrastinators, had a larger amygdala on average. The amygdala is the region of the brain associated with controlling emotions like fear. It’s also where the fight or flight response is initiated.
Read also: Research paper
Strong evidence now shows that human and animal parenting share many nervous system mechanisms. This is the conclusion of Yerkes National Primate Research Center researchers Larry Young, Ph.D., and James Rilling, Ph.D., in their review article about the biology of mammalian parenting, published in this week’s issue of Science. Better understanding this biology could lead to improved social development, benefitting generations of humans and animals to come.
In their article, Young and Rilling review the biological mechanisms governing a shift in mammals’ parental motivation that begins with aversion and transforms into irresistible attraction after giving birth. They say the same molecules that prepare the uterus for pregnancy, stimulate milk production and initiate labor also activate specific neural pathways to motivate parents to nurture, bond with and protect their offspring.