تبیین چهارچوب مفهومی خلاقیت اجتماعی و کاربست آن در نظریه شهر خلاق
محورهای موضوعی : طراحی شهریراضیه رضابیگی ثانی 1 , بهناز امین زاده 2
1 - دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکده شهرسازی پردیس هنرهای زیبای دانشگاه تهران.
2 - دانشیار دانشکده شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبای دانشگاه تهران.
کلید واژه: خلاقیت اجتماعی, نظریه شهر خلاق, کنش های آگاهانه, تجارب روزمره, عوامل زمینه ای,
چکیده مقاله :
در نظریه شهر خلاق، خلاقیت امری در انحصار نوابغ و هنرمندان است. این رویکرد فردگرایانه به خلاقیت سبب نادیده انگاشتن ابعاد، ســطوح و کارکردهای اجتماعی خلاقیت شده است. مطالعات صورت گرفته بیانگر نمود اجتماعی خلاقیت در بستر گروه های اجتماعی، سازمان ها و شهر است. لازم است تا خلاقیت به عنوان پدیده ای اجتماعی که حاصل تعامل افراد با محیط پیرامون است، مفهوم پردازی گردد. در این مقاله با بهره گیری از متون تخصصی، چهارچوبی تحلیلی برای خلاقیت اجتماعی پیشــنهاد شده است. روش تحقیق بهره گیری از ابزار کتابخانه ای با تکیه بر تحلیل محتوای اســناد اســت. یافته هــای تحقیق دربردارنده تحلیل نمودار مفهومی ســطوح و فرایند خلاقیت اجتماعی و تفسیر ارتباط میان کنشــگران، بستر و نتایج خلاقیت است. بروز خلاقیت اجتماعی در نظریه شــهر خلاق نیازمند نگرش به شهرسازی به مثابه کنشی اجتماعی و اتخاذ فرایندی مبتنی بر ارتقای گفتمان، مشارکت و تجارب روزمره است. در انتها پیشنهاد هایی جهت کاربست خلاقیت اجتماعی در نظریه شهر خلاق ارائه شده است.
This paper encourages a new approach to reconsider the current attitude towards creativity in the theories of the creative city, creative industries and creative economy. This reconsideration is necessary, because there is a threat that the individualistic and physiologic approach now arranges the concept of the creative city over any further exploration of creativity and its wider role in the economic, social and cultural environment. Creativity is shown as an issue in the domination of talented artists and geniuses in the theories of the creative city. This individualistic approach leads to ignore the social dimensions, levels, and functions of creativity. However, creativity is increasingly assumed as a social phenomenon in some studies, especially in the context of social groups, organizations, and city. An integrative review of the literature reveals that the engagement in creativity processes occurs not only in individuals, but in individuals interacting with each other, in group and team works, multilevel systems and finally in complex systems such as cities. There is a need to re-conceptualize creativity as a social phenomenon, resulting from the interaction between human beings and other people, their surrounding environment and the artifacts that represent essential collective knowledge. This article offers a conceptual framework for the main processes of social creativity that integrates perspectives from a body of related literature by using a conceptual map. Criteria for social creativity in the context of urban planning can be categorized into three general categories as contextual factors, sustained everyday practices and conscious activities. The most basic requirements of social creativity are the suitable contextual factors (a set of historical, social, cultural, and political conditions) and the existence or creation of motivation in society. Social creativity in urban planning context requires a paradigm shift and change of approach toward creativity from individualistic (physiologic and expert-based) viewpoint to holistic (sociological and people-based) approach. This paradigm shift plays the role of creativity in the larger domain of urban planning discipline and thus the literature of the creative city theory provides the basis for considering it as a social issue. Creative urban planning requires a collaborative, facilitative, and participatory process based on the discourse making among different stockholders and provides the possibility for the local society to accept the role of experts in the process of urban planning. Therefore, this paper discusses the relationship between individual and social creativity and analyzes the need for the social approach in the urban planning. The paper also suggests an agenda for re-qualifying the creative city theory according to this fundamentally social conception, including how this can be achieved through implanting a new concept of social creativity. The findings include a conceptual diagram which shows the analysis and interpretation of the relationship between actors and social creative process, context and the results of creativity. Social creativity requires social action and adopting process-based approach to urban planning, promoting dialogue among actors, participation and everyday experiences. In conclusion, several proposals are offered for the application of concept in the theory of social creativity and creative city.
1. اقتصادی، نهال، (1392). مشارکت شهروندان؛ کلید توسعه پایدار اجتماعی در محالت شهری (مطالعه موردی: محله باغشاه شهر شیراز). نشریه هویت شهر، 7 (16)، 81-97.
2. رضائیان قراگوزلو؛ علی؛ قادری، اسماعیل؛ و میرعباسی، رمضان. (1391). برنامه‌ریزی شهر خلاق. تهران: آذرخش.
3. داکسبری، نانسی. (1389). شهرهای خلاق کانادا. (شهرزاد فرزین پاک، مترجم). مجله شهرداری‌ها، 11(100)، 12-15.
4. سالاری سردری، فرضعلی؛ بیرانوندزاده، مریم؛ و علیزاده، سید دانا. (1393). نقش سرمایه اجتماعی در توسعه پایدار محلی (مطالعه موردی: سکونتگاههای شهری و روستایی منطقه عسلویه) هویت شهر، 8 (19)، 77-88.
1. Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1979). Dialectic of enlightenment. (J. Cumming, trans). London: Verso.
2. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
3. Amabile, T. M. (1995). Attributions of creativity: What are the consequences?. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 423-426.
4. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations. California Management Review, 40 (1), 39-58.
5. Banaji, S., Burn, A., & Buckhingham, D. (2006). The rhetorics of creativity: a review of the literature.
London: Creative Partnerships, Arts Council England.
6. Barlow, C. A. (2000). Deliberate insight in team creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34 (2), 101-117.
7. Bateson, M. C. (1999). Ordinary creativity. In R. E. Purser & A. Montuori (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 153-171). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
8. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. London: Columbia University Press.
9. Creative & Cultural Skills, (2008). Creative blueprint England. London: Creative & Cultural Skills.
10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, Culture, and Person: A Systems View of Creativity, in R. J. Sternberg (ed.) The Nature of Creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 325-339.
11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286-307.
13. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: analysing cycles of knowledge creation in practice, in: Y. ENGESTRÖM et al (Eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.
15. Fisher, R. (2004). What is creativity?, In Robert Fisher and Mary Williams (eds.) Unlocking Creativity: Teaching Across the Curriculum (6–20). New York: Routledge.
16. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic books.
17. Florida, R. L., &Tinagli, I. (2004). Europe in the creative age. London: Demos
18. Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual
creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112-1142.
19. Göranzon, B., Hammaren, M., & Ennals, R. (2006). Dialogue, skill and tacit knowledge. London: Wiley.
20. Howkins, J. (2001). The creative economy. London: Penguin.
21. John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Kasl, E., Marsick, V. J., & Dechant, K. (1997). Teams as learners. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 227-246.
23. Kilbourne, L. M., & Woodman, R. W. (1999). Barriers to organizational creativity. In R. E. Purser & A. Montuori (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 125-150). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
24. King, N. (1995). Individual creativity and organizational innovation. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations (pp. 82-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Landry, C. (2000). The creative city: a toolkit for urban innovators’. London: Earthscan.
26. Madjar, N. (2005). The contributions of different groups of individuals to employees’ creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 182-206.
27. Medeiros, N. (2005). Planning for creativity: the case study of Winnipeg’s Exchange District. master degree project’, faculty of environmental design,Calgary, Canada.
28. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (Eds.). (1999). Social Creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
29. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. )2001(. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
30. O’Connor, J. (2007) The Cultural and Creative Industries: A Review of the Literature, Report for Creative Partnerships, London: Arts Council England.
31. Oakley, K., (2006). Include us out: economic development and social policy in the creative industries. Cultural trends, 15 (4), 255–273.
32. Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85-101.
33. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-106.
34. Purser, R. E., & Montuori, A. (1999). Organizing as if creativity really mattered. In R. E. Purser & A. Montuori (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 313-357). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
35. Robinson, A. G., & Stern, S. (1997). Corporate creativity: How innovation and improvement actually happen. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
36. Runco, M. A. (1999). Creativity need not be social. In R. E. Purser & A. Montuori (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 237-264). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
37. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Creativity, leadership, and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 386-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 304-325). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39. Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 99-121). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 43-75). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological Pluralism: Styles and Voices Within the Computer Culture: Constructionist Learning. Idit Harel (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
42. West, M. A. (1995). Creative values and creative visions in teams at work. In C. M. Ford & D. A.
43. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321.
_||_