Hello!
I believe, that we, the researchers in social and human sciences are a bit like the Moliere’s Monsieur Jourdain who found out (with the help of the teacher) that he spoke in prose. Today we speak of certain types of proses, e.g. behavioral, liberal, etc., as it is the universal language of today's social and human science. The language we use is geared with the research we do.
I believe, the language from D. Kahneman "Thinking fast and slow" has made us use psychological & behavioral prose, and consequently psychological & behavioral interpretations and the units of analyses in our research.
That's why I start working on the project "Creating fast and slow" which aims at showing that the creativity of interdisciplinary teams is based not on how do particular members think but on how are the assignments formulated: (1) creating fast, the assignments that expect a direct solution of the formulated problem (2) creating slow, the assignments that allow redefining the problem and to solve another problem than the initial one. I believe that improperly solving a fast creativity assignment instead of the slow creativity assignments is a relevant research problem here.
Origins
In 2018, we carried out one semester-long workshop on innovations, where students were working on briefs supplied by firms from one of the technological parks. The briefs contained the problems to be solved. The students proposed solutions and got feedback from the authors of the briefs (the sponsor users were the holders of the study). We saw that (1) only one team reformulated the initially formulated problem after one semester of work on it (2) the presented solutions got feedback but no one was tested in a real-life environment anyway. We understand now that (1) the whole above project should be redesigned and (2) the problem of improperly solving a fast creativity assignment instead of the slow creativity assignments should be investigated also outside the university projects' reality.
Could you point any scientific sources or anecdotal evidence (failures? achievements?), where the teams solved the fast creating type assignment, where they should work on the slow creating type assignment? Have you seen any research on such a problem?
I would never assign the experience at the Nord plus project „SMS to Curriculum Innovations are Coming“ in so appropriate way as you described,
From the first sight, the teams of schools were pushed to solve "the fast creating type assignment" by the project aim, but as it turned on collecting evidences of what was done... the invisible effect (as you said) of "creating type assignment" became so visible.
That proves not only interpretations of the units of analyses in our research, but the basis for rethinking project aim in general... with experience of all participants :)
According to Kahneman (2011), the two systems that drive the way we think are (a) fast, intuitive, and emotional (System 1); and (b) slower, more deliberative, and more logical (System 2). In a nutshell, Kahneman (2011) revealed where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. This query purports to draw a parallel between "Thinking, fast and slow" and "Creating, fast and slow". Much as "Thinking, fast and slow" does, however, "Creating, fast and slow" may well depend on the type of "creation" under consideration, in the sense that the process of creating presumably hangs on the clarity of the goal and what methods are associated with reaching it. Referencing Turner and Cochrane (1993), the ways to reach an end-goal are a function of whether the task at hand is characterized by (a) a well-defined goal and well-defined methods, (b) a well-defined goal but poorly defined methods, (c) a poorly defined goal but well-defined methods, and (d) a poorly defined goal and poorly-defined methods.
References
Let me think about it.
Kahneman (2011) suggests that "quick thinking" (system 1) is flawed and is located in the (un)consciousness of the individual subject. Turner and Cochrane (1993) suggest that the team working method may be well or poorly defined.
I am suggesting that "creating fast" (1) is not a flawed method, but fits a limited group of problems or projects, and (2) is located in the performing of team practices. I would also say that "creating, fast and slow" relates to what goals are available in the teamwork project (containing reformulations of the initial assignment together with its goal) rather than is dependent on the clarity of the established goal = the ready-made benchmark for teamwork performance. The interpretative key is the repertoire of practices rather than the opposition of valuable vs. not valuable teamwork organization.
That's why I believe that the CF&S project can contribute substantially both to the literature and to the teamwork practices. I'm co-working on it in the project "We transform".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking