scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Proceedings ArticleDOI

Perceptions of Creativity in Software Engineering Research and Practice

01 Aug 2017-pp 210-217
TL;DR: A systematic mapping study of SE research literature and an interview study of practitioners reveal important differences in the way creativity is conceptualized, measured and improved.
Abstract: Software engineering, especially design and requirements engineering, is intensely creative. However, practitioners and researchers appear to perceive creativity differently, hindering knowledge transfer. To explore and understand these perceptual differences, this paper combines a systematic mapping study of SE research literature with an interview study of practitioners. The subsequent analysis of 84 primary studies and 17 semi-structured interviews reveal some agreement (e.g. creativity is a process that produces novel and useful ideas). However, it also reveals important differences in the way creativity is conceptualized, measured and improved. These differences undermine evidence-based techniques to enhance and measure creativity in SE research and practice.

Summary (1 min read)

Introduction

  • Creativity is a central topic of investigation in numerous disciplines including psychology [1], engineering [2], education [3] and management [4].
  • To investigate this question, the authors adopt a multimethodological approach [17] comprising a systematic mapping study, followed by a constructivist interview study.

A. Systematic Mapping Study

  • Aggregating and categorizing the available research on creativity in SE seemed quite broad, so a systematic mapping study was preferred over a detailed review.
  • After resolving the conflicts by mutual agreement, the same authors analyzed 20 further randomly selected papers.
  • Five interviews were conducted faceto-face and 12 via audio/video conference.
  • Specifically, the authors used an integrated coding approach [24]; that is, a combination of inductive and deductive coding where an initial list of categories based on their research questions helped us develop codes inductively.
  • Below, primary studies are cited as [S01] to [S84] to distinguish them from regular references.

A. How is creativity conceptualized in SE?

  • Eleven interviewees perceived creativity as a solution (idea or product) that exhibits novelty, ease of use and value for the creator or for the company.
  • Six interviewees described creativity as a productive processes leading to a simple yet valuable solution.
  • “creativity is to find a solution which … is less cost … get much value for the system … solves the problems of the customer … create anything with … less effort”, also known as interviewee 10 explained.
  • This illustrates the numerous criteria practitioners associate with creativity.
  • More broadly, interviewees’ conceptualizations of creativity reflect the dual criteria of novelty and effectiveness discussed in Section I.

B. What factors influence creativity in SE?

  • Sixteen interviewees felt that they enjoyed the freedom to use the creativity practices of their choice at work.
  • Of these, seven interviewees reported brainstorming [30] as the most used creativity practice.
  • Only one interviewee mentioned sketching to visualize a problem and facilitate creativity.
  • For 13 interviewees, ‘motivation’ was the key personality trait that influenced creativity.
  • Responses like, “…perform better to get better pay,” by Interviewee 14, provides evidence for this distinction.

C. How is creativity measured in SE?

  • Of the 17 interviewees, only 10 reported using some sort of creativity assessment approach.
  • Two primary studies but none of the practitioners focused on the creativity of the person doing the work.
  • If a practitioner and a researcher are discussing how to assess creativity, but one wants to assess products while the other wants to assess people, and neither party explicates their perspective, confusion is inevitable.
  • Dimensions of creativity other than product creativity remain underresearched in the SE literature.
  • Intrinsic motivation, in particular, is associated with more creative ideas [42].

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Perceptions of Creativity in Software Engineering Research and Practice
Rahul Mohanani, Prabhat Ram, Ahmed Lasisi
M3S (M-Group), University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
rahul.mohanani@oulu.fi, prabhat.r.ram@gmail.com, ahmed.lasisi@student.oulu.fi
Paul Ralph
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand
p.ralph@auckland.ac.nz
Burak Turhan
Department of Computer Science
Brunel University
London, United Kingdom
burak.turhan@brunel.ac.uk
AbstractSoftware engineering, especially design and
requirements engineering, is intensely creative. However,
practitioners and researchers appear to perceive creativity
differently, hindering knowledge transfer. To explore and
understand these perceptual differences, this paper combines
a systematic mapping study of SE research literature with an
interview study of practitioners. The subsequent analysis of
84 primary studies and 17 semi-structured interviews reveal
some agreement (e.g. creativity is a process that produces
novel and useful ideas). However, it also reveals important
differences in the way creativity is conceptualized, measured
and improved. These differences undermine evidence-based
techniques to enhance and measure creativity in SE research
and practice.
Keywords-creativity; interviews; systematic mapping;
software engineering
I. INTRODUCTION
Creativity is a central topic of investigation in numerous
disciplines including psychology [1], engineering [2],
education [3] and management [4]. Broadly speaking,
creativity refers to a process of becoming sensitive to
problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing
elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the
difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or
formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies: testing and
retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and
retesting them; and finally communicating the results[5, p.
6]. Moreover, creativity involves generating ideas, which
are not only new, novel or original but also useful, feasible
or effective [6].
Software design, requirements engineering (RE) and
programming are recognized as creative processes [7], [8].
A handful of software engineering (SE) studies seek to
understand creativity in SE contexts (e.g. [4], [7], [8]) or
examine creativity from an practitioners’ perspectives (e.g.
[9], [10]). Rather, most SE studies involving creativity rush
to prescribe tools or techniques to enhance it (e.g. [11],
[12]). While researchers and practitioners in psychology and
philosophy have built consensus around the dimensions of
creativity in their domains [13], SE researchers and
practitioners have not.
Creativity research can be divided into the “Six P’s”
[14], [13], as follows.
1) creativity’s underlying cognitive process
2) the product(s) of creative work
3) the person (or personality) doing the creative work
4) the place (context) of the work
5) how to improve creative thinking (persuasion)
6) how to improve our creative potential
While some SE studies focus on process (e.g. [8]) and
place (e.g. [15]) Most SE research appears to focus on
product [16].
Additionally, assessing creativity remains challenging
because creativity is multidimensional, subjective, difficult
to quantify and not completely understood. Since our shared
understanding of creativity guides assessment [1],
consensus between researchers and is critical to develop
appropriate approaches for assessing creativity. More
generally, the role of creativity in SE can be better
understood only when the understanding, expectations and
the reservations of both the communities are accounted for.
This argument motivates the following research
question:
Research Question: How is creativity perceived
both in the software engineering research literature
and by software engineering practitioners?
To investigate this question, we adopt a
multimethodological approach [17] comprising a systematic
mapping study, followed by a constructivist interview
study. By comparing and contrasting researchers’ and
practitioners views we can better understand impediments
to knowledge transfer and practice adoption.
We next describe the research approach (Section II) and
results (Sections III and IV). Section V discusses the
implications and limitations of our study. Section VI
reviews the existing literature on creativity in general and in
SE. Section VII concludes the paper with a summary of its
findings and recommendation for future research.
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper employs a systematic mapping study to
explore how the SE research literature characterizes
creativity. Meanwhile, it adopts a cross-sectional interview
study to investigate practitioners’ perspectives on creativity.
It then attempts data triangulationthat is, comparing and
contrasting the dimensions of creativity that emerge from
the mapping and qualitative analysis.
To this end, we found it helpful to divide our research
question into three sub-questions:
RQ1: How is creativity conceptualized in SE?
RQ2: What factors influence creativity in SE?
RQ3: How is creativity measured in SE?

A. Systematic Mapping Study
Aggregating and categorizing the available research on
creativity in SE seemed quite broad, so a systematic
mapping study was preferred over a detailed review. This
allowed us to categorize the evidence, based on the sub-
research questions at a high degree of granularity [18], [19].
We compiled the mapping protocol based on Kitchenham
and Charters’ guidelines [20].
The mapping protocol consisted of study objectives,
research questions, search strategy, inclusion criteria,
primary study selection process, and data extraction
strategy. It was reviewed iteratively by the first two authors
and revised as needed. To keep the search as broad as
possible, we searched the digital libraries, using the search
string ‘creativity’ AND ‘software engineering’. The search
was conducted on the full-text (not only the meta-data) for
publications until November 2015. The search process
produced a total of 8,872 entries from Scopus (2,695), IEEE
Xplore (3,268), ACM (1,385) and Science Direct (1,524).
The results were exported to Refworks
(http://www.refworks.com). Automatic de-duplication in
Refworks, followed by manual deduplication by inspection
left 7,655 studies. These were subjected to the following
inclusion criteria:
1) must be written in English
2) must belong to a journal or any conference or
workshop proceedings
3) must be peer-reviewed
4) must be relevant to software engineering
5) creativity must be the central focus of the paper
The first and third author piloted the inclusion criteria
on 30 randomly selected articles. A Fleiss Kappa value of
0.7 denoted a medium-high agreement [21]. After resolving
the conflicts by mutual agreement, the same authors
analyzed 20 further randomly selected papers. When the
two assessors agreed on all 20 papers, we judged the
inclusion rubric as reliable.
A total of 84 articles were subsequently included
1
and
evenly divided between the same authors, who extracted the
following data: publication year, definition of creativity,
approaches to measure creativity and factors influencing or
enhancing creativity. As a reliability check, the first and
third author independently cross-checked each other’s
analyses (extracted data) for any inconsistency and resolved
discrepancies by discussion.
B. Interview Study
A semi-structured interview guide was developed
following established guidelines [22], [23] to address the
three research questions from different directions
2
. We
conducted three pilot interviews to validate the guide,
resulting in minor updates. We then interviewed a
convenience sample of 17 SE practitioners (16 male and 1
female)—see Table I. Five interviews were conducted face-
to-face and 12 via audio/video conference. Interviews lasted
an average of 50 minutes. We aimed for a diverse sample of
interviewees to obtain a broad perspective, including
participants were from India (8), Finland (4), Iran (3),
Germany (1) and USA (1). Participants had a mean
experience of around 6 years in varying roles and industries.
1
For a complete list of primary studies, see http://bit.ly/2kgl0lX
2
The questionnaire is available at http://bit.ly/2rcUKwh
TABLE I. INTERVIEWEES CHARACTERISTICS
ID
Position
Industry
Experience
(Years)
IC01
Developer /
Tester
Telecommunication
9
IC02
Developer
Software development
3.5
IC03
Developer
Software development
2
IC04
Developer
Telecommunication
10
IC05
System
Architect
Marketing
9
IC06
Developer
Digital broadcast service
5.5
IC07
Researcher /
Developer
Finance
5
IC08
Developer
Telecommunication
4.5
IC09
Developer /
Tester
Software development
5
IC10
Developer
Marketing
10
IC11
Developer
Software development
3.5
IC12
Developer /
Tester
Oil and gas
7
IC13
Developer /
Tester
Oil and gas
6
IC14
Tester
Engineering and
consulting
3.5
IC15
Tester
Software development
3
IC16
Developer /
Tester
Software development
6.5
IC17
Tester
Telecommunication
12
The second author transcribed the interviews verbatim
from audio recordings (preserving original grammar,
verbal static, etc.). All quotations provide below reflect
exactly, or as closely as possible, what participants said.
All the transcripts were coded line-by-line by the second
author using Nvivo
3
. Specifically, we used an integrated
coding approach [24]; that is, a combination of inductive
and deductive coding where an initial list of categories
based on our research questions helped us develop codes
inductively. Codes related to each category were combined
to form themes, where a theme was seen as a high level
conceptualization of multiple codes grouped together [25].
As a reliability check, the first author reviewed all of the
coded scripts and subsequent themes.
III. SYSTEMATIC MAPPING RESULTS
The earliest included primary study was published in
1992. Interest increased significantly in 2008 and has
remained uneven but high ever since (see Fig. 1). Because
our search was conducted up to November 2015, the number
for 2015 may be depressed.
Of the 84 primary studies, 70 were published in journals
with the rest conference proceedings, and 69 reported
empirical studies. Of these, 12 conducted in an industry
setting, while 57 were conducted in laboratory
environments. Below, primary studies are cited as [S01] to
[S84] to distinguish them from regular references.
3
Nvivo is available from www.qsrinternational.com.

Fig. 1. Publication distribution per year
TABLE II. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CREATIVITY IN SE
Definition Elements
References
Novelty and Utility
S14, S21, S23, S25, S48, S49, S59,
S62, S66, S69, S74, S83, S44
Combining existing ideas
S33, S58
Number of developed features
S15
Deviation from usual pattern
S45
A process for idea generation
S68
Value addition
S77
Ill-defined problem
S74
A. How is creativity conceptualized in SE?
Out of the 84 primary studies, 19 papers attempted to
define or conceptualize creativity (Table II). Consistent with
Amabile’s interpretation of creativity [26], 13 primary
studies mention novelty and utility of a product as important
dimensions.
Regarding the six Ps of creativity (see Section I), 13
articles conceptualize creativity primarily on the product
dimension. For example, emphasizing the number of
product features [S15] and value-addition [S77] indicate a
focus the products aspect. Two primary studies [S9], [S43]
at least partially conceptualize creativity in terms of the
person dimension. Only one primary study clearly
emphasized creativity as a process [S68]. One article
emphasized ill-defined problems [S74], which implicitly
acknowledges the creative process. None of the articles
focus on place, persuasion or potential.
B. What factors influence creativity in SE?
The approaches to improving creativity can be divided
into two broad categories: adopting specific practices [S03],
[S10], or modifying various factors that, in turn, affect
creativity [S22], [S23]. Many different practices and factors
have been investigated (see Tables III and IV).
Appearing in 30 primary studies, brainstorming is the
most studied creativity practice. For example, brainstorming
is effective for exploring creative ideas on project
requirements [S23], [S61]. Crowdsourcing [S81] and idea
exploration [S12] are also used to explore diverse ideas,
increasing the chances of creative output. Similarly, some
software organizations use explicit workshops to foster
creativity among employees [S10], [S28]. More generally,
Agile [S11], [S21] and open source software development
approaches [S04], [S13] appear to promote interaction and
idea exploration, increasing creativity.
TABLE III. PRACTICES INFLUENCING CREATIVITY
Practice
Brainstorming
Agile
Sketching
Open source
software
Workshop
Scenarios
Creative problem
solving
Designing
Unfamiliar
connection
Idea exploration
Analogies
Mind maps
Crowdsourcing
Transformational
approach
TABLE IV. FACTORS INFLUENCING CREATIVITY
Factors
Collaboration
Communication
Domain knowledge
Positive affective
state
Extrinsic motivation
Time pressure
Flexibility
Relationship and
trust
Stress and pressure
Constraints /
conflicts
Cultural diversity
Task structuring
Sketching, meanwhile, involves visual manifestation of
an idea to foster creativity, especially in software design
[S17], [S38]. A similar rationale supports the practice of
designing, where designers utilize visual aids of sketching
to generate creative outputs [S17], [S31]. Mind maps is
another practice relying on visual definition of ideas and
concepts, and making connections to produce creative
artefacts [S32]. Visual representation of an idea promotes
communication among developers to initiate a practice
called creative problem solving (CPS), which leads to better

creative thinking [S10], [S67]. CPS is the mutual process of
divergent thinking (exploring multiple domains for
solutions) and convergent thinking (picking the most
appropriate solution) [27] to assist in creativity or creative
thinking [7], [28]. Practices such as unfamiliar connection
[S31], analogies [S10], and transformational approach
[S47] encourage the utilization of familiar elements in many
unconventional ways to explore creative ideas [S47], [S67].
Collaboration and communication are the two most
investigated factors influencing creativity. Collaboration,
mentioned by 32 primary studies, helps combine knowledge
from diverse disciplines to generate creative ideas [S10],
[S22]. Highlighted by 24 primary studies, appropriate
communication within a group or across multiple groups
helps to remove barriers, improves collaboration,
encourages learning, and plays a crucial role in inducing
creativity [S33], [S52].
Domain knowledge is important for creativity [S62],
[S63]especially producing ideas that are effective as well
as novel. Affective states (moods and emotions) are intrinsic
factors that can induce creativity [S28], [S39]. Positive
affective states enhance creative performance, while
negative affective states impede it [S50], [S59].
Extrinsic motivation driven by reward systems, culture,
relationship and trust can also influence innate factors such
as affective states, thereby influencing creative performance
[S23], [S27]. Developers’ flexibility in project execution
can also enhance their creative performance [S01], [S21].
Restrictions such as time pressure, stress, resources
constraints, rigidity and authoritarian management styles
contrastingly inhibit creative thinking [S62], [S66].
C. How is creativity measured in SE?
SE studies have adopted several approaches to assessing
creativity (Table V). Four of the primary studies
operationalized creativity by counting new features added
(particularly to open source software products) [S11], [S15],
[S82], [S84]. Creativity can also be operationalized as the
number of conceptual ideas generated [S21] or ratio of
enhancements to bugs resolved in a code [S15]. Subjective
assessment of perceived novelty [S18] or quality [S40] of
ideas or code is also used. One study used the Consensual
Assessment Technique, where multiple domain experts
assessed the creativity of a product [S50].
Williams’ test [29], assessing fluent thinking, flexible
thinking, original thinking and elaborative thinking, is also
reported to measure creativity [S9], [S43]. It is the only
measurement approach we encountered that evaluates the
creativity of a person rather than product.
TABLE V. APPROACHES TO MEASURE CREATIVITY
Creativity Metrics/Measurement
References
Number of added new features
S11, S15, S82, S84
Williams’ creativity assessment test
S9, S43
Number of multiple ideas generated
S21
Measuring value, novelty based on diverse
stakeholders’ opinion
S18
Ratio of number of enhancements to the
number of bugs resolved
S15
Fluctuations in quality as codes evolve
S40
Consensual Assessment Techniques
S50
IV. INTERVIEW RESULTS
Our integrated coding approach produced three themes,
which roughly correspond to the three research questions
(Table VI).
A. How is creativity conceptualized in SE?
Eleven interviewees perceived creativity as a solution
(idea or product) that exhibits novelty, ease of use and value
for the creator or for the company. Six interviewees
described creativity as a productive processes leading to a
simple yet valuable solution. For instance, interviewee 10
explained: creativity is to find a solution which is less
cost get much value for the system … solves the problems
of the customer create anything withless effort”. This
illustrates the numerous criteria practitioners associate with
creativity. More broadly, interviewees’ conceptualizations
of creativity reflect the dual criteria of novelty and
effectiveness discussed in Section I.
B. What factors influence creativity in SE?
Sixteen interviewees felt that they enjoyed the freedom
to use the creativity practices of their choice at work. Of
these, seven interviewees reported brainstorming [30] as the
most used creativity practice. Interviewees felt that
brainstorming multiple ideas or solutions helped
practitioners to arrive at the best possible outcome.
The remaining nine interviewees mentioned several
practices including online research, consulting experts, and
experimenting with different ideas to enhance their
creativity. Interviewee 13 explained: I played with many
things even talked to one of the senior programmers
he gave me a couple of ideas.” Only one interviewee
mentioned sketching to visualize a problem and facilitate
creativity.
All of the interviewees mentioned factors that
influenced or enhanced their creativity. For 13 interviewees,
motivation’ was the key personality trait that influenced
creativity. The need to be creative was extrinsically
motivated by rewards, recognition, personal growth
prospects, and team dynamics. Responses like, “…perform
better to get better pay,” by Interviewee 14, provides
evidence for this distinction. Four interviewees were
intrinsically motivated by autonomy, self-satisfaction,
learning or the opportunity to work across multiple
domains. Interviewee 14 said simply, I just enjoy doing
what I am doing,” indicating a deep sense of intrinsic
motivation.
Additionally, 12 interviewees singled out their
workplace environment as influencing their creativity.
Responses such as “Nobody stops me from doing anything,”
(Interviewee 13) suggest autonomy as an important
determinant of creativity. Interviewees felt that freedom
from rigid routines and external pressures gave these
interviewees the opportunity to be creative at work.
C. How is creativity measured in SE?
Of the 17 interviewees, only 10 reported using some sort
of creativity assessment approach. Eight interviewees
believed that creativity assessment was based on the
perceived quality of their personal contributions, or the
value those contributions can make to the company. One of
these interviewees equated this value with company profits.

The remaining seven interviewees reported that the
quality and value aspect of creativity was based on their
company’s arbitrary approvals made at their own
discretion. As Interviewee 10 explained, “usually, maybe
one or two people who are handling most of the stuff…CTO
is usually the one make this decision.” None of the
interviewees indicated that creativity is a key criterion in
their regular performance appraisals.
To summarize, we found that all the reported approaches
to assess creativity were essentially based on the subjective
evaluation of an individual or group of individuals. None
participants used any specific tool, rubric, or practice to
measure creativity.
V. TRIANGULATION AND DISCUSSION
Some important similarities and differences between the
research and industry perspectives are evident.
Six practitioners and one (possibly two; see Section III
A) primary studies conceptualized creativity in terms of a
process. Two primary studies but none of the practitioners
focused on the creativity of the person doing the work. At
least one practitioner, but none of the primary studies
emphasized place (i.e., the impact of work context). Neither
studies nor practitioners seem to consider persuasion or
potential.
Both communities conceptualize creativity primarily in
terms of creative products. However, while most research
seems to embrace the dual criteria of novelty and
effectiveness, many practitioners appear unconcerned with
TABLE VI. EXAMPLE OF THEMATIC SYNTHESIS OF PRACTITIONERS PERCEPTION OF CREATIVITY
Theme
Codes
Quotes
Novel, usable
and value-
inducing
process or
product
Creative
product
“According to me creativity is making something that will help make someone’s life easier, and making
something that has not been made yet, or taking something that is already there, and modifying it and
taking it to another level."
"I like building systems, and I like building systems that do their job very well. And usually, I find beauty
in simplicity"
Creative
process
“get maximum automations for the process in which I am working for…So to make the data which they
are handling on a day-to-day basis in a much simplified way is my idea of creativity.
"Propose a simple solution, finding simpler ways to fix something and use less resources and efforts"
Novelty and
usability
“It’s more of, I think, usability…UX. That how does the user uses, how can we simplify things for users,
the end users who are using the website and mobile applications”
"... creativity is finding novel solutions and get them to work "
Value
“…in our system, creativity is to find a solution which…it less cost…we get much more value for the
system, and…less, actually, flow and…with a less effort and with a less complexity, and solve a big
problem, it’s creativity”
Empowerment,
encouraging
environment,
and personal
characteristics
Brainstorming
“yeah…they have brainstorming, you can say, sessions, where anyone can present their ideas"
“we have brainstorming sessions, in which majority of the people are involved, and everybody is asked
for an opinion"
Freedom
“..Every 2 weeks we have 1 day for ourselves that we can do whatever you want. They really, like...it can
be anything, and it’s really good. You can do some cool stuff, and there.”
"Dividing the whole thing into smallest component and then testing it. This is where creativity lies"
“so I played with many things...talked to one of this…one of senior programmers in our company...I did
lot of research on stack overflow and other web sites.”
Visualization
"First I try to…sketch it on a board, and…I visualize it first…if all this is in my mind, I cannot decide it
very well. So I try to visualize it on the board"
Creativity
opportunity
"Yes, it does. It allows me to be creative because I can choose to test the way I want. There are no
guidelines or rules to follow."
“To be creative? Yes…yes, I think. I see it’s as a balance, you know? At one hand, my job is not
specifically defined. We don’t have perfectly defined tasks that can be assigned to someone.”
“Sometimes, yes. Whenever I am implementing a feature, and I got the opportunity to explore more into
the tool to achieve that functionality, that time I feel like, “yeah, today I learned a new thing.”
Motivation
“I think basically the increment…perform better to get better pay. And, basically, I want to learn new
things, like, motivates me, like, something new, learn something new in the domain.”
“I just enjoy doing what I am doing. This is what my biggest motivation is.”
“Teamwork…for example, when we have problems, it’s like a team…when we work well as a team, it
just motivates me myself.”
Subjective
performance
assessment
Performance
based
“We have one portal, where we have to put our inputs, like what we have done in this year. So on that
criteria they evaluate our performance, our creativity. “
“They (company) see what kind of idea the developer and the technical people are coming up with. Then
based on the entire ratings and the kind of visibility the project gets, then the company accordingly
assesses the creativity of each and every individual.”
Based on
perceived
value and
quality
“The first parameter, which is taken into consideration, is what benefit is it bringing to the
company…The second thing is…how durable a particular solution is.”
“No, that’s very…that’s very seldom…I’d say that creativity…if it amounts to bottom-line, then, yes, but
not as a standalone property of…of a developer.”
“…if you want to do something…do something really big that it’s…you want to integrate it with their
(company’s) project, then of course they will evaluate or something.”

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A collection of readings on creativity aiming for balance and variety rather than depth or adherence to a particular point of view is presented in this paper, where short selections, from the writings of philosophers, psychologists, psychoanalysts, educators, literary figures, and creative scientists are presented.
Abstract: This collection of readings on creativity aims for balance and variety rather than depth or adherence to a particular point of view. Short selections, from the writings of philosophers, psychologists, psychoanalysts, educators, literary figures, and creative scientists are presented. The editors have avoided introspective accounts by intent, although subjective descriptions of the creative process appear in excerpts by Edgar Allen Poe and Walter Cannon. The selections begin with Plato and Aristotle, include Kant and Lombroso, Jacques Maritain and Arthur Koestler, empirical investigators such as Jacob Getzels, Anne Roe, and Frank Barron, and contemporary philosophers such as Croce , Collingwood, and Monroe Beardsley. Although the editors, a psychiatrist and a philosopher, include excerpts from their own writings on creativity, they modestly place their contributions among the “Alternative Approaches” rather than under the heading of “Seminal Accounts.” Of the total of 45 selections, only four are by psychoanalysts, Freud, Harry Lee, Ernst Kris, and Lawrence Kubie. Several excerpts are by sometime psychoanalysts Rank and Jung. Several additional contributors, Ehrenzweig, Schachtel, and Barron’, have been influenced by psychoanalysis. The low psychoanalytic profile, however, is deceptive. As the editors state, “The upsurge of scientific interest in creativity in this century began with the psychoanalysts who first became interested in art and artistic creation because of their wider concern with the phenomena of motivation, affect and irrational id processes” (p. 94), and many of the other selections show . the influence of psychoanalytic theory and clinical findings, if only in passing.

56 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The conclusions indicate that programmer's personality traits and knowledge collection behavior play a key role in shaping their intention to be creative and should be given due attention during the hiring process of creativity-oriented software companies.
Abstract: Context: Creativity is one of the essential ingredients in successful software engineering. However, majority of the work related to creativity in software engineering has focused on creativity in requirement engineering. Furthermore, there are very few studies that examine programmer creativity and the impact of individual and contextual factors on it. Objective: The objective of the study is to analyze the impact of the big five personality traits including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience, as well as knowledge collection behavior on a programmer's creativity intention. Method: A quantitative survey was conducted and data from 294 programmers, working in offshore software development projects, was collected. The data was later analyzed using Smart-PLS (3.0). Results and Conclusions: The results indicated that openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness and knowledge collection behavior positively predicted a programmer's creativity intention. On the other hand, neuroticism negatively predicts creativity intention of the programmer. The study also concluded that all of the independent variables, except the agreeableness trait, significantly predict creativity intention which in turn significantly predicts creativity. As a result, our conclusions indicate that programmer's personality traits and knowledge collection behavior play a key role in shaping their intention to be creative. Hence, personality traits and knowledge collection behavior should be given due attention during the hiring process of creativity-oriented software companies.

29 citations

01 Jan 2019
TL;DR: The results of this dissertation suggest that more formal and structured presentations of Desiderata cause requirements fixation, the tendency to attribute undue confidence and importance to desiderata presented as formal requirements statements---that affects design creativity, and thus undermines software engineering success.
Abstract: There is a broad consensus in the software engineering (SE) research community that understanding system desiderata and design creativity is critical for the success of software projects. This has motivated a plethora of research in SE to improve requirements engineering (RE) processes. However, little research has investigated the relationship between the way desiderata are presented (i.e., framed) and creative design performance. This dissertation, therefore, examines the effects of more formal presentations of desiderata on design creativity. The research was conducted in three phases. The first consisted of summarizing the available literature on cognitive biases in SE to build a comprehensive body of knowledge, understand the current state of research, and identify the relevant literature to position and delineate subsequent investigations involving the framing effect and fixation. This research phase also investigated how creativity is conceptualized (i.e., understood, assessed and improved) in SE by exploring the perceptual differences and similarities between SE researchers and practitioners. In the second phase, two controlled experiments were conducted to investigate the impact of framing desiderata first as requirements (in general) and then as prioritized requirements on design creativity (i.e., the originality and practicality of a design). The third phase involved a protocol study to explore the underlying cognitive mechanisms that may explain why framing desiderata as formal requirements affects creativity. The empirical evidence from the second and third phases was interpreted together to propose a theoretical framework that explains the effect of specification formality on design creativity. While the results of the experiments show that specification formality is negatively related to design creativity (i.e., desiderata framed as requirements or prioritized requirements result in designs that are less creative), the findings from the protocol study indicate that the negative relationship between specification formality and design creativity is mediated by fixation (i.e., more formal presentation of desiderata induces fixation and hinders critical thinking). Overall, the results of this dissertation suggest that more formal and structured presentations of desiderata cause requirements fixation---the tendency to attribute undue confidence and importance to desiderata presented as formal requirements statements---that affects design creativity, and thus undermines software engineering success.

20 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a study of 356 estudiantes with the tecnica de muestreo aleatorio estratificado at the Universidad Superior de Chile (Unión Superior) found that the majority of them used the TIC for the purpose of gestion de información, desarrollar pensamiento critico, and resolver problemas.
Abstract: El mercado laboral actual exige nuevas cualidades y conocimientos a los recien egresados de las universidades, incluidas las habilidades digitales, no existiendo suficientes investigaciones sobre la autopercepcion del estudiantado al respecto. El objetivo de esta investigacion fue medir la percepcion que el estudiantado tiene sobre sus propias habilidades digitales del siglo XXI, en relacion con el uso de las tecnologias de la comunicacion (TIC) en la Educacion Superior. Se genero y aplico un cuestionario a 356 estudiantes con la tecnica de muestreo aleatorio estratificado. Se realizo un analisis de componentes principales avalado por valores adecuados del coeficiente Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin y de la prueba de esfericidad de Barlett. Los datos indican que el estudiantado usa la tecnologia digital en proyectos academicos primordialmente, y posee alta habilidad al usar las TIC para la gestion de informacion, para desarrollar pensamiento critico y para resolver problemas, asi como para manejar dispositivos moviles. Sin embargo, su autopercepcion es baja respecto al uso de las TIC en la imparticion de clases. Los resultados sugieren que el estudiantado no cree que el uso de las TIC en el aula sea util para desarrollar este tipo de habilidades digitales emergentes. En cambio, indican que la realizacion de proyectos academicos si fortalece la adquisicion y desarrollo de tales habilidades en relacion con el uso de las TIC.

13 citations

01 Jan 2020
TL;DR: A Systematic Literature Review is presented in order to find in the literature papers that use creativity and empathy techniques in privacy requirements elicitation and no papers that relate Creativity to the elicitation of privacy requirements are found.
Abstract: This paper presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) in order to find in the literature papers that use creativity and empathy techniques in privacy requirements elicitation. These techniques have been used in requirements elicitation in order to facilitate the understanding of the requirements and provide a collaborative interaction between the teams and the end user. Thus, we investigated whether the literature already has reports on the use of these techniques as facilitators in the process of privacy requirements elicitation. As a result of the SLR, we found few papers related to the use of Empathy in privacy requirements elicitation and no papers that relate Creativity to the elicitation of privacy requirements.

5 citations


Cites methods from "Perceptions of Creativity in Softwa..."

  • ...In addition, several authors use creative techniques to elicit requirements during the agile software development process [21], [46], [40], [27], [44], [59]....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

7,318 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...7 denoted a medium-high agreement [21]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work examines less structured interview strategies in which the person interviewed is more a participant in meaning making than a conduit from which information is retrieved.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Interviews are among the most familiar strategies for collecting qualitative data. The different qualitative interviewing strategies in common use emerged from diverse disciplinary perspectives resulting in a wide variation among interviewing approaches. Unlike the highly structured survey interviews and questionnaires used in epidemiology and most health services research, we examine less structured interview strategies in which the person interviewed is more a participant in meaning making than a conduit from which information is retrieved. PURPOSE In this article we briefly review the more common qualitative interview methods and then focus on the widely used individual face-to-face in-depth interview, which seeks to foster learning about individual experiences and perspectives on a given set of issues. We discuss methods for conducting in-depth interviews and consider relevant ethical issues with particular regard to the rights and protection of the participants.

4,956 citations


"Perceptions of Creativity in Softwa..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...A semi-structured interview guide was developed following established guidelines [22], [23] to address the three research questions from different directions2....

    [...]

Proceedings ArticleDOI
28 May 2006
TL;DR: This tutorial is designed to provide an introduction to the role, form and processes involved in performing Systematic Literature Reviews, and to gain the knowledge needed to conduct systematic reviews of their own.
Abstract: Context: Making best use of the growing number of empirical studies in Software Engineering, for making decisions and formulating research questions, requires the ability to construct an objective summary of available research evidence. Adopting a systematic approach to assessing and aggregating the outcomes from a set of empirical studies is also particularly important in Software Engineering, given that such studies may employ very different experimental forms and be undertaken in very different experimental contexts.Objectives: To provide an introduction to the role, form and processes involved in performing Systematic Literature Reviews. After the tutorial, participants should be able to read and use such reviews, and have gained the knowledge needed to conduct systematic reviews of their own.Method: We will use a blend of information presentation (including some experiences of the problems that can arise in the Software Engineering domain), and also of interactive working, using review material prepared in advance.

4,352 citations


"Perceptions of Creativity in Softwa..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...We compiled the mapping protocol based on Kitchenham and Charters’ guidelines [20]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a componential framework for conceptualizing creativity is presented, including domain relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills and task motivation as a set of necessary and sufficient components of creativity.
Abstract: Despite the clear importance of social and environmental' influences on creative performance, a social psychology of creativity is yet to be developed. Theory and research have focused almost exclusively on a personality approach to creativity and, to a lesser extent, a cognitive-abilities approach. Following a consideration of the definition and assessment of creativity, a componential framework for conceptualizing creativity is presented here. Including domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills, and task motivation as a set of necessary and sufficient components of creativity, the framework describes the way in which cognitive abilities, personality characteristics, and social factors might contribute to different stages of the creative process. The discussion emphasizes the previously neglected social factors and highlights the contributions that a social psychology of creativity can make to a comprehensive view of creative performance. A striking feature of many phenomenological accounts of creativity is the degree to which outstandingly creative individuals feel influenced by social and environmental factors. In many cases, these factors are quite ordinary, mundane events; it appears that even seemingly insignificant features of the environment can be detrimental or conducive to creativity in some individuals. For example, in a letter to a friend, Tchaikovsky (1906) described the devastating effect that

3,134 citations


"Perceptions of Creativity in Softwa..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Since our shared understanding of creativity guides assessment [1], consensus between researchers and is critical to develop appropriate approaches for assessing creativity....

    [...]

  • ...Creativity is a central topic of investigation in numerous disciplines including psychology [1], engineering [2], education [3] and management [4]....

    [...]

Frequently Asked Questions (1)
Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Perceptions of creativity in software engineering research and practice" ?

To explore and understand these perceptual differences, this paper combines a systematic mapping study of SE research literature with an interview study of practitioners. 

Trending Questions (1)
What is tghe research gap between perception of politics and creativity?

The research gap between perception of politics and creativity is not mentioned in the provided information.