For creativity to occur, a set of rules and practices must be transmitted from the domain to the individual. The individual must then produce a novel variation in the content of the domain. The variation then must be selected by the field for inclusion in the domain. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999, p. 315)
84
In 1988, the creativity psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi introduced a model that today has gained widespread recognition (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). This model is applied by researchers in varied forms throughout the field of creativity (i.e., Gardner, 1993; Fredens, 2006; Kupferberg, 2006; Sternberg, 1999). According to the model, creativity is defined on the basis of three
categories; the individual, the domain, and the field. Creativity is present when all three factors are integrated; (1) an individual (or a group of individuals) producing something, (2) a knowledge-domain that represents the starting point for the production, and (3) a social field which decides whether or not the production can be regarded as ‘creative’. Thus, it is not possible to be creative independently from a specific knowledge-domain. Equally, it is not possible to define something as creative unless this very property is confirmed in a social field.
4.4.1 Constructivism and objectivism
The model has constructivist as well as objectivist implications. On one hand, the model is obviously inspired by traditional sociological approaches, such as Bourdieu's field theory. In that respect, ‘creativity’ is a social construction and there is no way of appointing something as
‘creative’ if it is not confirmed in a social field. This is circular reasoning; what is creative is what people think is creative. On the other hand, the model implies that a knowledge-domain consists of a definitive set of rules and codes. From this perspective, it might be possible to objectively
examine whether or not an artefact is based on these rules and/or to which extent the rules are broken.
Creativity is any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a new one. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 28)
This balancing between social constructivism and more objective/positivistic approaches represents a key dilemma in creativity theory and can be identified in the work of some of the main researchers within the field, e.g. Margaret Boden (1991), Anna Craft (2005), Teresa Amabile (1996), and Hans-Henrik Knoop (2002). The question of whether or not this strategy is reasonable from an
epistemological point of view will be addressed from different perspectives throughout the following discussions.
85
4.4.2 The structure of the domains and fields
According to Csikszentmihalyi, different domains are structured in different ways. Some domains are characterized by definite norms, codes, and rules, whereas other domains are more blurred and less clearly organized when it comes to the inherent and inherited volume of knowledge.
Csikszentmihalyi suggests that the structure of the domain might be related to the type of
knowledge forming the domain. Thus, domains like mathematics or physics are defined as ‘highly structured’, whereas domains like philosophy, social science, and psychology are described as less structured (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, pp. 39-49).
The symbolic system of mathematics is organized relatively tightly; the internal logic is strict; the system maximizes clarity and lack of redundancy.
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 39)
According to Csikszentmihalyi a structured domain is somehow more measurable. Thus, it seems like Csikszentmihalyi basically refers to positivistic conceptions of knowledge as opposed to more constructivist ones. Simonton apparently suggests a similar understanding of knowledge domains, when he writes:
[D]isciplines differ substantially regarding the field’s consensus regarding the composition of the domain. In fact, empirical research indicates that major disciplines can be placed in the following order: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, the humanities, and the arts. Expressed in Kuhnian terms, the natural sciences are more paradigmatic than the social sciences, which in their turn are more paradigmatic than the humanities and the arts.
(Simonton, 2010a, pp. 166-167)
As it is the case with the domains, the fields are also described as basically different in terms of stability and structure (Csikszentmihalyi, Feldman & Gardner, 1994). Some fields are characterized by a solid network of institutions, competitions, teachers, educations, and public reviewing, whereas other fields are less centred and less well organized (Csikszentmihalyi, Feldman & Gardner, 1994, p. 36) (for further discussions on the interrelation between field and domain, see Appendix L and R).
86
4.4.3 Csikszentmihalyi’s system model presupposes stability
All though Csikszentmihalyi describes different levels of clarity it still seems like well-organized fields and domains are somehow presupposed. First of all, rules and norms are repeatedly described as something relatively stable, demarcated, and well defined. This approach is for instance reflected in the notion about the ten years of training required in order to make a creative contribution to a domain (see Chapter One). In other words, Csikszentmihalyi somewhat assumes that a domain is characterized by rules that will endure for many years. At least, the question of whether the domain might develop during the ten years of training or the impact such developments might have on the process of learning, is not addressed. Secondly, according to Csikszentmihalyi, the domain is mainly dominated by experts in formal positions and with formal educational backgrounds. The audience, (the users, the students etc.) is not really addressed as a major player in terms of the development of the domain.
It is the task of the ‘field’ to select promising variations and to incorporate them into the domain. The easiest way to define a field is to say that it includes all those persons who can affect the structure of a domain. Thus, the field of art includes the following; art teachers and art historians, because they pass on the specialized symbolic information to the next generation; art critics, who help establish the reputation of individual artists; collectors, who make it possible for artists and works of art to survive; gallery owners and museum curators, who preserve and act as midwives to the production of art; and, finally, the peer group of artists whose interaction defines styles and revolutions of taste. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, p. 330)
There might be several reasons for this approach to the field and the domain. First of all,
Csikszentmihalyi’s descriptions are probably quite accurate in many cases in the sense that experts often occupy dominating positions in the field. Secondly, Csikszentmihalyi’s investigations of creativity are in general devoted to unambiguously big-C creativity with a clear focus on well-established fields and domains, like physics, classical music, etc. Thus, the main body of the
empirical material included in Csikszentmihalyi’s large-scale study of creativity conducted between 1990 and 1995 consists of investigations and interviews with people that are at least sixty years old and have made differences within ‘a major domain of culture’, including fourteen Nobel Prize winners (1996, p. 12). Thus, the focus is not just ‘domains’ but rather ‘major domains’, which
87
apparently are understood as well-established domains with a long-term history and a partly formalized social field, e.g. represented by venerable institutions as the Nobel Prize. Furthermore, the investigation is highly retrospective, leaving out contemporary cases and, accordingly, leaving out the possibility that domains and fields might appear differently from a modern perspective.
In the light of the above, it seems like Csikszentmihalyi is simultaneously launching and exploring the system model of creativity. That is, a specific type of system is suggested as a general model of creativity and, simultaneously, research is primarily conducted within the domains and fields that meet the specified standards. Csikszentmihalyi’s descriptions of domain and field are probably very suitable in many cases but not necessarily suitable in every case. Undoubtedly, the line of reasoning inherent in the descriptions of field and domain might be challenged in a number of ways. Firstly, the quality of the field may not be constituted through formal gatekeepers and expert judgements.
That is, social and global digital-based networks like e.g. YouTube may be seen as an alternative way to organize the field, providing a more user-driven and less expert-based system of judgement (Keen, 2007). Secondly, rapidly changing domains may not contain an unambiguous solid and stable amount of rules and codes (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 29).
4.4.4 Summing up: how to implement the proposition in the study?
The system model offers a valuable insight into the social construction of creativity. Nevertheless, the model might be most suitable to explain how creativity is constituted within stable domains. In this study, the model is challenged in two ways. First of all the evaluation groups do not consist of people in formal positions within the field of music. Conversely, they represent listeners of music in general. Second of all, the chosen domain is computer-based music in a youth cultural context.
Thus, the chosen domain might represent a type of domain essentially different from the domains investigated by Csikszentmihalyi in terms of stability and coherency. Most importantly, the rules, codes, and techniques that constitute the domain might be more disputed (see Chapter One).
88