See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281656301

The Relationship between Creativity and Design and Its Implication for
Design Education

Article  in  Design Principles and Practices · January 2011

DOI: 10.18848/1833-1874/CGP/v05i01/38017

CITATIONS READS

3 1,202

3 authors, including:

Anthony Williams Michael J. Ostwald

Avondale College of Higher Education UNSW Sydney
94 PUBLICATIONS   491 CITATIONS    233 PUBLICATIONS   860 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Anthropocentric Biocybernetic Computing View project

Assessing creativity in the creative arts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael J. Ostwald on 21 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Volume 5, Number 1

The Relationship between Creativity and Design

and Its Implication for Design Education

Anthony Philip Williams, Michael J. Ostwald

and Hedda Haugen Askland
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
http://www.Design-Journal.com

First published in 2011 in Champaign, Illinois, USA

by Common Ground Publishing LLC
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com

ISSN: 1833-1874

© 2011 (individual papers), the author(s)

© 2011 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism
or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may
be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For
permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL is peer-

reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and
qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance
and highest significance is published.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGPublisher multichannel

typesetting system
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/
The Relationship between Creativity and Design and Its
Implication for Design Education
Anthony Philip Williams, The University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Michael J. Ostwald, The University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Hedda Haugen Askland, The University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Abstract: In a study on architectural education in Australasia, Ostwald and Williams (2008a; 2008b)
identified three key issues: (1) there is a lack of understanding of pedagogical dimensions of creativity
in design; (2) there is no appropriate strategies to understand where different levels of creativity occur
and how they should be assessed; and (3) there is a lack of appropriate models or tools to support
assessment of creative works. Closely related to these problems is a lack of an unambiguous disciplinary
definition of creativity, as well as an assumed relationship between creativity and design. This paper
explores this relationship and questions how creativity forms part of design and design processes. It
further considers the relationship between creative processes and design processes as they relate to
design education. The paper forms part of an ongoing research project concerning assessment of
creativity in higher education in Australia. The primary data for the paper was collected during a
symposium with Australian design academics and practitioners who were asked to discuss their per-
ceptions and experiences of creativity and assessment of design students’ creative works.

Keywords: Design, Creativity, Assessment, Design Education

C
REATIVITY IS OFTEN defined as the development of novel and appropriate
solutions to problems. This definition of creativity can be compared with a common
definition of design as being a discipline that seeks a balance between form and
function, between originality and practicality, novelty and appropriateness. Design,
as a discipline, is at the same time guided by existing realities with particular needs, functions
and requirements and future opportunities for cultural reproduction, technological advance,
innovation and intervention. The need to find a balance between present realities and future
opportunities, between the opposing requirements of appropriateness and novelty, places
creativity at the heart of design. Creativity is, as Hernan Casakin (2007: 22) argues, what
enables designers ‘to transcend conventional knowledge domain[s] so as to investigate new
ideas and concepts which may lead to innovative solutions’; that is, through creativity un-
orthodox and innovative approaches to design problems may be found.
Despite the assumed centrality of creativity in the design process, definitions of creativity
are in many respects vague and ambiguous, leading to a commensurate lack of clarity in
descriptions of the design process. In response to this situation, this paper explores the
concept of creativity as it relates to design by considering key historical and theoretical ap-
proaches to the concept, and by relating these historical and theoretical models to views and
opinions about creativity held by a small group of expert designers. The paper is divided
into four main parts: first, it briefly describes the overarching research project which this
article forms part of along with the project’s research methodology; second, it illustrates the

Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal

Volume 5, Number 1, 2011, http://www.Design-Journal.com, ISSN 1833-1874
© Common Ground, Anthony Philip Williams, Michael J. Ostwald, Hedda Haugen Askland, All Rights
Reserved, Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

complexity that exists in relation to the concept of creativity, as it is reflected in key histor-
ical and theoretical approaches to the concept and in the views held by expert design academ-
ics; third, it looks for a sense of consensus within this complexity; and, finally, it considers
educational issues related to the concept of creativity.

Research Project and Methodology

This paper is part of an Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) project entitled
Assessing Creativity: Strategies and Tools to Support Teaching and Learning in Architecture
and Design, which considers the assessment of creativity in tertiary design education in
Australia. The project aims to create a conceptual framework for understanding creativity
as it relates to design, and to generate a set of shared terms and concepts that can be used
when assessing the creative component of a students’ design work. The project commenced
in January 2010 and is set to finish in October 2011. Data will be collected through two main
approaches: (1) a symposium held with senior design academics and practitioners; (2) semi-
structured interviews with design academics and focus groups with students at up to ten
Australian universities.
The paper draws predominantly on primary data collected during the symposium, which
was held in June 2010. A total of 22 invited senior academics and practitioners took part in
the event (excluding the project team members).1 The participants at this event were asked
to consider five questions about creativity and assessment, and to submit their answers in
writing prior to the event.2 At the start of the symposium, the participants each presented a
short position statement on the topic, summarising their answer to the five questions, which
were:

1. What is ‘creativity’?
2. How does creativity present itself in your discipline?
3. What role does creativity play in design?
4. What makes a person’s actions or the products of their actions creative?
5. Can creativity be assessed and, if so, how?

The responses received display a wide range of opinions about, and understandings of, cre-
ativity. In what follows, the main approaches proposed will be discussed and placed in relation
to the key conceptual approaches to the concept as derived from an extensive literature review
of the topic.

Conceptual Ambiguity
In response to the five questions, the symposium participants’ responses revealed a complex,
diverse and contested field. Given the breadth of opinion, one analytical strategy would be
to classify the responses according to the two main historical approaches to creativity: ro-

1
Table 1 at the end of the paper provides a list of the symposium participants’ names, positions and affiliations.
2
The written responses from the symposium attendees have been published in a book on design creativity together
with around 20 additional responses received from national and international experts (Williams, Ostwald & Askland
2010). Symposium participants were given the opportunity to amend their initial responses, though the majority
chose not to make any amendments.

58
 ANTHONY PHILIP WILLIAMS, MICHAEL J. OSTWALD, HEDDA HAUGEN
ASKLAND

manticism and rationalism. This traditional dichotomy between views on creativity has de-
veloped over time, though both models have their roots in ancient Greece.
Romanticism is typically traced back to the philosophical writings of Plato (429–347BCE)
who argued that creativity is the result of divine inspiration and that rational deliberation
interferes with creative processes (Sawyer 2006: 15); creativity, as divine inspiration, is a
process of unfettered and undisciplined ‘agonised’ searching (musing). According to Plato,
an artist could only create what his (or her) Muse dictated and, as Sawyer (2006: 12) explains:

[t]he artist’s job was not to imitate nature but rather to reveal the sacred and transcendent
qualities of nature. Art could only be a pale imitation of the perfection of the world of
ideas.

A later version of the romantic model is embedded in the Prussian philosopher Immanuel
Kant’s (1724–1804) theory of aesthetics. In the Kantian notion of creativity, the creative
individual is seen as someone who possesses ‘an extraordinary innate “gift” that is beyond
the grasp of mere mortals’ (Cowdroy & Williams 2006: 100). This idea of ‘gifted individuals’
maintains Plato’s view of creativity as an innate (or divine) force that cannot be promoted
or fostered; it emphasises creativity as something that lies beyond the rational conscious.
The counter position to Romanticism is Rationalism; a view which opposes the idea of
creativity as spontaneous, unconscious and rare, and instead emphasises creativity as being
related to hard work, reason, knowledge and training. This approach was first proposed by
Plato’s student, Aristotle (384–322 BCE), who emphasised that conscious work, rationality
and deliberation is required in order to realise creative inspirations. In Aristotle’s view, cre-
ativity was potentially more commonplace and it included the creation of uncomplicated or
predictable objects as acts of creation.3 The contemporary rationalist paradigm maintains
Aristotle’s emphasis on creativity as rational, dispositional and contextual. Creativity is seen
as a potential in all human beings that can be fostered, developed and promoted; it is gener-
alisable, learnable, teachable and assessable.
Despite the growth of scientific explanations that refute the concept of a mystical force
or spontaneous outburst of inspiration as the source of creativity (e.g. Guilford 1950; Mednick
1962; Torrance 1974; Wallas 1926), the romantic ideas continue to pervade professional
culture. During the 2010 symposium, for example, two of the participants emphasised the
irrational dimension of creativity, arguing that:

I think that the idea of, or the sense of creativity might actually be much larger than us.
I do share Joseph Campbell’s idea that, to quote, you know ‘the creative spirit ranges
out there in the universe, and it just, it happens everywhere and sometimes we check
into it’ […] you see yourself operating between the measurable and the unmeasurable,
and the point of where you make creative intervention is where they click together.
Because the bit you appreciate is the unmeasurable bit […] the bit that we’re chasing
is the bit that we don’t actually make.
Smith 2010s4

3
It was, however, not until the European Renaissance that the rationalist model started posing a serious challenge
to the romantic idea of special talent or unusual ability as manifestations of an outside spirit.
4
In this paper, when referring to a comment made by one of the symposium participants, we have listed their
surname, the year 2010 and the letter “s” to an unpaginated transcript of the symposium discussion.

59
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

There is a tension between the rational and the irrational, and in the end the rational
wins, because we have to build a building in the end. But, […] in this work […] the ir-
rational is preserved in the very fine product. So, the work itself has something that
[…] ‘suspends our disbelief in the ideal’, in other words, we don’t have to believe that
there is an ideal world and an ideal human being and all that, but somehow when you
enter a great building, there is a suspension of that disbelief, so that the work touches
our own creative impulse about something more than us, something more than each of
us.
Lozanovska 2010s

Although these quotes refer to transcendent concepts and thereby reflect the romantic dis-
course, they are not purely romantic; their endorsement of the possibility to have an education
of design and creativity makes them contemporary perspectives. Indeed, Lozanovska actually
notes that the rational side ultimately takes precedence, though she hopes that this does not
mean that all transcendent qualities are lost. Paradoxically, the two quotes do, however, reflect
the romantic’s association of creativity with ideas and work that are complex and historically
influential; a view that poses difficulties when placed within educational contexts. They
place emphasis on what Margaret Boden (2004) labels ‘historical creativity’ (H-creativ-
ity)―that is, work that resembles an idea that ‘no one else has had before’ (Boden 2004:
2)―at the expense of ‘psychological creativity’ (P-creativity), which involves ‘coming up
with a surprising, valuable idea that’s new to the person who comes up with it’ (Boden 2004:
2). These two ‘types’ of creativity both form part of the rationalist approach, which acknow-
ledges creativity as a relative entity that should not only be seen in relation to societal pre-
requisites but also to those of the individual actor. Rationalism entails a perspective in which
the phenomenon of creativity is perceived as consisting of progressive stages that can be
distinguished by the high-order thinking and imagination that is involved (Glăveanu 2010;
Ainsworth-Land 1982; Bergquist 2001; Cowdroy and de Graaff 2005). Hence, whereas the
romantic ideas are traditionally at odds with educational agendas, the rationalist model
provides a framework in which a pedagogical approach to creativity can be proposed. It is
therefore not surprising that the rationalist paradigm dominates the academic discussion of
creativity and the symposium participants’ responses.
Rationalism is, however, not one coherent, simple approach; indeed, within this overall
category divergent views are common. For example, whereas some design academics explore
creativity through an emphasis on design methodology (e.g. Dorst 1997), others emphasise
prototyping and the use of knowledge based systems (Gero & Maher 1993; Mitchell 1993;
Rosenman & Gero 1993), the design product (e.g. Kim et al. 2007; McLaughlin 1993), the
design process (e.g. Akin & Akin 1996; Cross 1997a, 1997b, 2000; Cross & Clayburn Cross
1995; Demirkan & Hasirci 2009; Garvin 1964; Hasirci & Demirkan 2007; Hertz 1992; Kim
et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2005; Korth 2000), or the designer (Casakin & Kreitler 2005a, 2005b;
Christiaans 1992; Coyne 1997; Coyne & Snodgrass 1991; Elton 2006; Koloder & Wills
1996; Kreitler & Casakin 2009a, 2009b; Leon 1964; Meneely & Portillo 2005). Creativity
is described as being a positivist phenomenon related to particular kinds of processes (Simon
1992 [1967]) and as reflective practice that derives from the particularities of a situation
(Schön 1983, 1987); it is considered as generalisable and one-dimensional, as well as task-
specific and complex.

60
 ANTHONY PHILIP WILLIAMS, MICHAEL J. OSTWALD, HEDDA HAUGEN
ASKLAND

This diverse range of positions, within a broadly rationalist perspective, is not limited to
theoretical approaches to design creativity. During the symposium, it became evident that
the divergence of views and opinions are also reflected in practice. In conjunction with the
idealist positions quoted previously, the symposium participants’ presented definitions of
creativity ranging from it being a cognitive ability that is beyond the reach of designers and
limited to the field of neuropsychology, to it being a matter of social validation that is relative
to particular fields and domains. These two opposing views have tremendous consequences
as to what is the focus of design: whereas the former emphasises the design product as the
only thing that matters when teaching, understanding and appreciating design; the latter
emphasises the design process, the interrelationships between creator and audience, and the
role of (often implicit) rules and boundaries. These two views are illustrated in the quotes
below:

[Creativity is] the result of interaction/s of various parts of the brain resulting in a pro-
ductive type of thinking […] We don’t know the cause of creativity; we don’t know
what ‘makes’ a person creative’ […] I’m just going to stick with the thing that matters,
and that’s the artefact […] and so it is the quality of the artefact that comes from the
productive style of thinking, that the neuroscientists can’t explain, which is important
to me.
Savage 2010s

Creativity is the social validation of imagination […] To be creative is not only to

imagine, describe or fabricate something new or unprecedented. Creativity implies that
a social good attaches to the new thing, so that its qualities are recognised in relation
to their uniqueness as well as their utility, insight, aesthetic value etc. Thus to be creative
is to show a capacity that is socially admired or respected.
Margalit 2010s

Margalit’s view reflects what is often labelled as the contextualist approach to creativity.
Such approaches emerged during the 1980s as a group of psychologists turned to sociology,
anthropology and history with the aim of expanding the notion of creativity. The emerging
models moved creativity beyond the psychological emphasis on the individual and considered
how creativity, creative abilities, creative processes and creative products reflect an interactive
engagement between the individual and the social environment.5 In line with the contextualist
argument, Margalit and a number of other symposium participants described creativity as a
relative value identified in relation to existing realities; as a quality of processes, persons,
products and situations; as a concept related to knowledge and mastery of fields; and, as a
discipline specific phenomenon that plays out differently at different levels of expertise.
Antony Radford, for example, argued that:

the act of creating can refer to product, person, process and situation […] The creative
person involves a state of mind, the creative process involves play, exploration, openness
[…] The creative situation, I’ve got relaxed but purposeful, it needs both of those to be

5
Theories that fall under this category include Teresa Amabile’s (1983, 1996) theory of the social psychology of
creativity, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s system theory (1988, 1996, 1999), and Robert Sternberg and Todd Lubart’s
investment theory of creativity (1991, 1992, 1995, 1996).

61
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

creative, I don’t think anyone’s creative under too much pressure […] [creativity relates
to] this notion of being aware of rules, being aware of specific patterns, but not following
them.
Radford 2010s

The proposal that creativity is related to specific rules and patterns is epitomised in the fol-
lowing quote by Kees Dorst:

[creativity] plays out differently on different levels of expertise […] We also see that
between the disciplines of design and architecture, it’s professionalised differently, it
takes different shapes, people do different things.
Dorst 2010s

Despite the various definitions that were proposed at the symposium, a general consensus
was reached that when speaking about creativity in relation to design education, a disciplinary
understanding of the concept has yet to be reached. Moreover, it was agreed that expectations
and requirements of creative outputs and creative processes of a first year student and a
graduate cannot be the same. This suggests that there is a general consensus amongst design
academics that creativity has to be seen as a trait, an ability or an approach that can be fostered
and developed. The potential of creativity is within all human beings, though its advancement,
sophistication and level of development will vary depending on a range of factors. What
these factors are, whether or not they are the result of nature or nurture, remains contested.
Sandra Kaji-O’Grady articulated this dilemma when she argued that:

the proverbial elephant in the room is the nature versus nurture division, the renaissance
notion of being born under the sign of Saturn [… which] sees creativity as an innate
and compelling force of character that is fated by birth. Yet the question of aptitude
and innate creativity is […] at odds with an educational program which teaches creativity,
and yet, […] we’ve all experienced the limits of creativity teaching, everyone of us
would have had a student where we think ‘nothing is going to elicit the creative synapse
in our discipline.’ […] So there is this question of whether creativity is something that
comes to us and we foster, or whether it is something that can be overlayed through
our educational programs.
Kaji-O’Grady 2010s

The nature-nurture dilemma is beyond the scope of the present research but its revival in the
symposium highlights the importance of the individual. This insistence on the influence of
the individual does not reduce the argument to a romantic, idealist or individualist position;
the individual in this context is defined as a social being whose experience, knowledge, re-
lations and practice influence and are influenced by the three other factors that form part of
the creative phenomenon: product, process and press. It is this very interconnection between
person, product, process and press that lies at the heart of the symposium participants’ call
for a disciplinary understanding of creativity.

62
 ANTHONY PHILIP WILLIAMS, MICHAEL J. OSTWALD, HEDDA HAUGEN
ASKLAND

Moving towards a Disciplinary Definition

The four-part system―person, product, process and press―was first proposed by Mel Rhodes
in 1961. While exploring the field of creativity research, Rhodes identified the ‘4Ps’ as dif-
ferent strands, which each highlight particular characteristics of creativity. In short, studies
of the creative person emphasise personal characteristics and personality variables such as
intelligence, temperament, values, personal attributes, physique, habits, self-concept, defence
mechanisms, intrinsic motivations, knowledge, expertise and skills. Studies of the creative
product place the emphasis on variables that relate to the outcome of the creative process
(both ideas and tangible products). Studies of the creative process emphasise empirical and
sub-empirical variables such as ideas (initial, critical, composite), idea generation, creative-
leap, use of technology, restructuring and combining. Lastly, studies of creative press refers
to the variables that relate to the relationship between human beings and their environment
including the social, cultural, political and economic forces that play upon individuals and
that cause particular sensations, perceptions and imaginations (Rhodes 1961).
Although the four strands can be analysed and explored independently, it is only through
their interconnection that they operate functionally; the four factors overlap and intertwine
and it is through their unity that what is labelled as ‘creative problem solving’, ‘creative
processes’, ‘creative inquiries’, or ‘creative play’ take place. None of the 4Ps are more im-
portant than the any other; they are all necessary for ‘creativity’ to occur and they influence
and are influenced by each other. However, in order to understand this process and for the
purpose of analysis, one strand has to be centred. If, for example, the creative agent (this
being either an individual or a group) is placed at the centre of a four stranded model (Figure
1) it becomes apparent how the various traits of the agent is influenced by the three other
strands: the agent’s cognitive characteristics relate to the creative process through her/his/their
divergent/convergent thinking, aesthetic taste, imagination, integration and intellectuality,
decisional skills and flexibility; the agent’s motivational attitudes relate to the outcome of
the creative process, the product, through goal-orientation and the search for recognition;
and, the agent’s personality traits relate to the environmental (press) factors through
her/his/their personal knowledge, understanding and experience of the field and domain in
which she/he/they act (see also: Portillo 1996). Similarly, any other of the strands can be
placed at the centre and their influence on the other factors can be identified.

63
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

Figure 1: A Multifaceted Approach to Creativity centred Around the Person

This holistic, multifaceted and interconnected approach to creativity was reflected, either
consciously or unconsciously, in many of the responses received from the participants of
the symposium. Bringing it back to the discipline of design and virtual art, Robyn Tudor
argued in her written statement that:

[…] creativity presents itself as a purposeful (re)visioning and (re)formation of images,

objects, contexts and applications that strive to interrogate both aesthetic and pragmatic
considerations. Creativity in the fine art actively explores meaning making by seeking
to stimulate and facilitate new and reflective aesthetic and conceptual experiences for
particular audiences, often by challenging prior assumptions, interpretations and beliefs
and reworking past certainties. Creativity in design is more closely linked with the
process, form, material, structure and purpose of products including a quest for continu-
ous improvement and redefinition of social and cultural artifacts and environments,
often with some commercial or practical relevance for a range of end-users and other
stakeholders.
Tudor 2010s

The idea about (re)visioning and (re)formation suggests the need for prior knowledge; that
is, a sense of what is. This, as well as the concept of the creative act as an exploration of
meaning making and the idea of reflection, refers back to the creative agent (individual or
group) and the attributes, knowledge, values and approaches that they bring to a particular
situation and/or problem. It suggests an ability to imagine and analytically engage with po-
tential future outcomes and an understanding of the environment in which the creative act
is set and in which the end product will be situated. It reflects an issue of mastery and famili-
arity; of understanding present conditions and realities, and of having the required ability to
identify opportunities and constraints, as well as the skills to develop and communicate ideas
and outcomes, therein.

64
 ANTHONY PHILIP WILLIAMS, MICHAEL J. OSTWALD, HEDDA HAUGEN
ASKLAND

Within this approach, creativity can easily take on a relative character; that is, it becomes
something measured in difference. As Harry Margalit explained when discussing his under-
standing of what it means to be creative:

you need to master a field in order to be creative within it, because it’s a reflection of
[…] what exists now.
Margalit 2010s

The relative aspect of creativity was further emphasised by Suzie Attiwill who proposed
that creativity is the production of new things or new arrangements of things. She argued
that creativity is recognised by the distance between what has been created or produced and
what already exists:

this idea of the production of difference is really important to thinking about creativity,
and um, it’s sort of this measurable and unmeasurable aspect of it, with difference.
Because you can have difference, which is actual difference from some things, so it
can be measured, because it’s just you know, a distance from something that already
exists.
Attiwill 2010s

Attiwill focuses on the creative product, though she mentions the process leading to creative,
or different, products when speaking about the need for ‘continuous experimentation with
the world of things’. This, yet again, emphasises the role of the physical, social, political,
cultural and economic milieu in which the creative act is set. Moreover, the emphasis on
experimentation draws the attention towards a particular approach, which requires an envir-
onment supportive of creativity along with individuals who are inclined to play, experiment
and take risks.

Implications for Design Education

Although analysis has found a general agreement amongst the symposium participants with
regards to a multifaceted approach to creativity that includes consideration of person, product,
process and press, confusion and ambiguity prevails within educational realms. Students are
confused as to exactly what are expected of them and what requirements they should adhere
to. The ambiguity and vagueness surrounding the concept of creativity as it relates to design
education causes stress and frustration, in particularly in relation to assessment tasks. As a
female student explained during a recent focus group, there is a ‘mystery’ surrounding the
assessment of the work. When asked, ‘how has your creativity, throughout your studies,
been assessed?’ she answered:

I’d really love to know [laughs]. I’ve been thinking of sort of pinning down one of my
tutors and picking their brains over it because […] this semester I’m totally just exploring
a whole lot of stuff, and I did well last semester, I’m feeling a little nervous I’m not
going to do so well even though I’m pushing myself and, so I’m, yeah, I’m feeling a
bit questioning about the whole thing, what do they really expect of me?

65
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

This quote reflects the findings of Ostwald and Williams (2008a, 2008b) in their study of
architectural education in Australasia. According to Ostwald and Williams, the lack of
defined learning and assessment outcomes as they relate to ‘creativity’ lead to high levels
of stress and students experience vast difficulties in relation to identifying aspired learning
outcomes, which further leads to frustration and dissatisfaction (see also: Bachman and
Bachman 2006).
The lack of clearly stated requirements as they relate to creativity is also problematic with
regards to the increased demands of objectivity and transparency placed upon modern uni-
versities. Contemporary design educators are faced with the difficulty of balancing the uni-
versity sector’s quality assurance protocols with the complex, heuristic nature of design;
thus, the sector’s call for objectivity is juxtaposed with the disciplines’ inherent subjectivity.
In response to the demands of transparency and objectivity, there has been a growing regional
trend to develop rubrics and criteria for marking and to adopt a complex combination of as-
sessment protocols and quality assurance to provide a level of objectivity. These do, however,
tend disregard the question of creativity, which often remain an unarticulated subject of as-
sessment.
One of the problems related to the concept of creativity is the divergence between the
embodied, lived, practical experience of creativity and the theoretical and abstract definitions
and models that exist. A challenge for the research project on which this paper is based, and
for the discipline more generally, is to find a way of building a bridge between the theoret-
ical and the pragmatic notions of the concept. Creativity is a complex concept, and ignoring
this complexity will pose the danger of reducing it to a simple outcome of particular rational
or relative problem-solving processes or to being the character of particular products. Though
the simplicity of such definitions may help academics and students by providing a ‘check
list’ of requirements and expectations, such reductionism is problematic within heuristic
disciplines, such as design, that focus on experience-based, project-based, and problem-based
teaching. Rather than a simple, unilateral definition of creativity, design education requires
a multifaceted approach to creativity through which students can learn about the various
aspects that form part of creative processes and influence (the judgement of) creative products.
Creativity is a focus of design education and it is a stated learning outcome of the discipline.
Accordingly, there is a need to confront the issue of creativity; creativity as a concept should
not be taken for granted but rather be engaged with and discussed. There is not one single
answer to the question of creativity in relation to design and how creativity forms part of
design processes; indeed, any efforts at defining creativity in design must acknowledge the
variation that exist within the discipline itself. The idea of a multifaceted approach to creativity
may go some way in this regards, not by providing a simple answer, but by providing an
umbrella under which more specific understandings and definitions related to the various
sub-disciplines can be proposed.

Conclusion
Teaching and assessing creativity requires an understanding of what creativity is; it requires,
firstly, a demystification of the concept and, secondly, an articulation of what it entails.
Through this dual process, students can engage with the concept and the creative tasks they
work on; through involvement in a process of critical self- and peer-assessment, they can
reflect on and learn from their educational experiences. In addition, they may be able, over

66
 ANTHONY PHILIP WILLIAMS, MICHAEL J. OSTWALD, HEDDA HAUGEN
ASKLAND

time, to develop their own embodied understanding of creativity as it relates to design. Part
of this process requires that the academics themselves articulate their embodied and tacit
understandings of creativity and place this on the agenda. Through the present research
project we hope to initiate this process; through discussions with students and academics,
and through a display of the wide range of opinions and beliefs that exist in relation to the
topic, the project aims at trigger reflection, thought and debate that, may eventually, lead to
greater consensus and less ambiguity.

Table 1: Symposium Participants

Name Position Affiliation
The University of Queensland; School of Architec-
Brit Andresen Professor
ture
RMIT University; School of Architecture and
Suzie Attiwill Associate Professor
Design
Swinburne University of Technology; Faculty of
Deirdre Barron Associate Professor
Design
The University of Tasmania; School of Architec-
Geoffrey Clark Senior Lecturer
ture and Design
The University of Tasmania; School of Architec-
Ian Clayton Lecturer
ture and Design
Kees Dorst Professor UTS; Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
Barbara de la RMIT University; College of Design and Social
Associate Professor
Harpe Context
Jonathan Holmes Professor The University of Tasmania; School of Art
Amantha Imber Founder Inventium
Sandra Kaji- The University of Sydney; Faculty of Architecture,
Professor
O’Grady Design and Planning
Mirjana Lozan- Deakin University; School of Architecture and
Senior Lecturer
ovska Building
Harry Margalit Associate Professor UNSW; Faculty of Built Environment
RMIT University; School of Architecture and
Andrea Mina Associate Professor
Design
Shane Murray Professor Monash University; Department of Architecture

67
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

The University of Melbourne; Faculty of Architec-

Clare Newton Senior Lecturer
ture and Urban Design
The University of Adelaide; School of Architec-
Antony Radford Professor
ture, Landscape and Urban Design
Queensland University of Technology; Faculty of
Susan Savage Professor
Built Environment and Engineering
Deakin University; School of Architecture and
Des Smith Professor
Building
Queensland University of Technology; Faculty of
Mark Taylor Associate Professor
Built Environment and Engineering
Deakin University; School of Architecture and
Richard Tucker Senior Lecturer
Building
Director of Learning
Robyn Tudor and Teaching En- UNSW; College of Fine Arts
hancement
The University of Tasmania; School of Architec-
Louise Wallis Lecturer
ture and Design

Acknowledgements
Support for this paper has been provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council
Ltd, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views
of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

References
Ainsworth-Land V. 1982. Imaging and creativity: an integrating perspective. Journal of Creative Be-
havior 16:5-28
Akin Ö, Akin C. 1996. Frames of reference in architectural design: analysing the hyperacclamation
(A-h-a-!). Design Studies 17:341-61
Amabile TM. 1983. The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag
Amabile TM. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press
Bachman L, Bachman C. 2006. Student perceptions of academic workload in architectural education.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 23:271-30
Bergquist C. 2009. A comparative view of creative theories: psychoanalytic, behaviourist and humanist,
Vantage Quest, viewed 12 October 2009, < http://www.vantagequest.org/trees/comparat-
ive.htm# >
Boden MA 2004. The Creative Mind. Myths and Mechanisms. London & New York: Routledge
Casakin H. 2007. Metaphors in design problem solving: implications for creativity. International
Journal of Design 1:21-33
Casakin H, Kreitler S. 2005a. The determinants of creativity: flexibility in design. In Crossing Design
Boundaries, ed. P Rodgers, pp. 392-8. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis

68
 ANTHONY PHILIP WILLIAMS, MICHAEL J. OSTWALD, HEDDA HAUGEN
ASKLAND

Casakin H, Kreitler S. 2005b. The nature of creativity in design: factors for assessing individual cre-
ativity. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Studying Designers, ed. JS Gero, N
Bonnardel, pp. 87-100. Sydney: University of Sydney, Key Centre of Design Computing
and Cognition
Christiaans HHCM. 1992. Creativity in Design. The Role of Domain Knowledge in Designing . PhD
thesis, TU Delft, Delft
Cowdroy R, de Graaff E. 2005. Assessing highly-creative ability1. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education 30:507-18
Cowdroy R, Williams A. 2006. Assessing creativity in the creative arts. Art, Design & Communication
in Higher Education 5:97-117
Coyne R. 1997. Creativity as commonplace. Design Studies 18:135-41
Coyne R, Snodgrass A. 1991. Is designing mysterious? Challenging the dual knowledge thesis. Design
Studies 12:124-31
Cross N. 1997a. Creativity in Design: Analyzing and Modeling the Creative Leap. Leonardo 30:311-
7
Cross N. 1997b. Descriptive models of creative design: application to an example. Design Studies
18:427-40
Cross N. 2000. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design. Chichester, New York:
Wiley
Cross N, Clayburn Cross A. 1995. Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design
Studies 16:143-70
Csikszentmihalyi M. 1988. Society, culture and person: A systems view of creativity. In The Nature
of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, ed. R Sternberg, pp. 325-39.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Csikszentmihalyi M. 1996. Creativity. Glow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New
York: HarperPerennial
Csikszentmihalyi M. 1999. Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Handbook
of creativity, ed. R Sternberg, pp. 313-35. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University
Press
Demirkan H, Hasirci D. 2009. Hidden dimensions of creativity elements in design process. Creativity
Research Journal 21:294-301
Dorst K. 1997. Describing Design - A comparison of Paradigms. Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft
Elton L. 2006. Assessing creativity in an unhelpful climate. Art, Design & Communication in Higher
Education 5:119-30
Garvin WL. 1964. Creativity and the Design Process. Journal of Architectural Education (1947-1974)
19:3-4
Gero JS, Maher ML. 1993. Introduction. In Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-based Creative Design,
ed. JS Gero, ML Maher, pp. 1-6. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Glăveanu VP. 2010. Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psy-
chology. New Ideas in Psychology 28:79-93
Guilford JP. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist 5:”444-54
Hasirci D, Demirkan H. 2007. Understanding the effects of cognition in creative decision making: a
creativity model for enhancing the design studio process. Creativity Research Journal 19:259-
71
Hertz K. 1992. A coherent description of the process of design. Design Studies 13:393-410
Kim MH, Kim MH, Lee HS, Park JA. 2007. An underlying cognitive aspect of design creativity:
Limited Commitment Mode control strategy. Design Studies 28:585-604
Kim SE, Kim MH, Jin ST. 2005. Cognitive characteristics and design creativity: an experimental study.
DETC 2005 / ASME 2005 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer and
Information in Engineering Conference. Long Beach, California, USA
Kolodner JL, Wills LM. 1996. Powers of observation in creative design. Design Studies 17:385-416

69
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

Korth SJ. 2000. Creativity and the design process. Performance Improvement Quarterly 13:30-45
Kreitler S, Casakin H. 2009a. Motivation for creativity in design students. Creativity Research
Journal 21:282-93
Kreitler S, Casakin H. 2009b. Self-perceived creativity: the perspective of design. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment 25:194-203
Leon B. 1964. Creativity in Architectural Design: The ACSA Committee Reports. Journal of Archi-
tectural Education (1947-1974) 19:19-22
Mednick SA. 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69: 220-32
Meneely J, Portillo M. 2005. The adaptable mind in design: relating personality, cognitive style, and
creative performance. Creativity Research Journal 17:155-66
Mitchell WJ. 1993. A computational view of design creativity. In Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-
based Creative Design, ed. JS Gero, ML Maher, pp. 25-42. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates
Ostwald MJ, Williams A. 2008a. Understanding Architectural Education in Australasia. Volume 1:
An Analysis of Architecture Schools, Programs, Academics and Students. Sydney: ALTC
Ostwald MJ, Williams A. 2008b. Understanding Architectural Education in Australasia. Volume 2:
Results and Recommendations. Sydney: ALTC
Portillo M. 1996. Uncovering implicit theories of creativity in beginning design students. Journal of
Interior Design 22:16-24
Rhodes M. 1961. An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan 42:305-10
Rosenman MA, Gero JS. 1993. Creativity in design using a design prototype approach. In Modeling
Creativity and Knowledge-based Creative Design, ed. JS Gero, ML Maher, pp. 111-38.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Sawyer RK. 2006. Explaining Creativity. The Science of Human Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Schön DA. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books
Schön DA. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Brass
Simon HA. 1992 [1967]. Science of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Sternberg R, Lubart T. 1991. An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Devel-
opment 34
Sternberg R, Lubart T. 1992. Buy low and sell high: an investment approach to creativity. Current
Directions in Psychological Science 1:1-5
Sternberg R, Lubart T. 1995. Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity.
New York: Free Press
Sternberg R, Lubart T. 1996. Investing in creativity. American Psychologist 51:677-88
Torrance EP. 1974. Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press
Wallas G. 1926. The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Williams A, Ostwald MJ, Askland HH. 2010. Creativity, Design and Education. Theories, Positions
and Challenges. Sydney: ALTC

About the Authors

Prof. Anthony Philip Williams
Tony is currently the Head of School of the Faculty of School of Architecture and Built
Environment. He is a winner of multiple University Teaching Awards as well as a National
Awards for Teaching Excellence. Tony has worked extensively in curriculum design and
implementation both at program and course levels and is highly regarded in this area, having
worked as a curriculum consultant both nationally and internationally. Tony’s research is in

70
 ANTHONY PHILIP WILLIAMS, MICHAEL J. OSTWALD, HEDDA HAUGEN
ASKLAND

the field of Design Methodology. He is widely published in the field of Design and Engin-
eering Education, with over 100 publications in these professional education fields. Tony
has been awarded over $1million in competitive research funding

Prof. Michael J. Ostwald

Professor Michael J. Ostwald is Dean of Architecture at the University of Newcastle, Aus-
tralia, a Visiting Professor at RMIT University (Melbourne) and a Professorial Research
Fellow at Victoria University Wellington.He has a PhD in architectural history and theory
and a higher doctorate (DSc) in the mathematics of design. He has lectured in Asia, Europe
and North America and has written and published extensively on the relationship between
architecture, philosophy and geometry. Michael Ostwald is a member of the editorial boards
of the Nexus Network Journal and Architectural Theory Review and he is co-editor of the
journal Architectural Design Research.

Dr. Hedda Haugen Askland

Hedda has a Candidata Magisterii (Can.Mag.) degree from the University of Bergen, Norway,
with social anthropology as her major, a Masters of Social Science and a PhD (Sociology/An-
thropology) from the University of Newcastle. Hedda has also undertaken an introductory
course and part examination for Master studies in social anthropology at the University of
Bergen. She is well-acquainted with the use of ethnographic methods and qualitative interview
techniques, and has previously taught research methodology at the University of Newcastle.
Her research higher degree studies provide Hedda with excellent research skills to manage
the current project.

71
Editors
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

Editorial Advisory Board

Genevieve Bell – Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, USA.
Michael Biggs – University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, UK.
Thomas Binder – Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jeanette Blomberg – IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, USA.
Eva Brandt – Danmark Designskole, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter Burrows – RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Monika Büscher – Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Patrick Dillon – Exeter University, Exeter, UK.
Michael Gibson, University of North Texas, Denton, USA.
Loredana Di Lucchio, Sapienza Universita di Roma, Rome, Italy.
Judith Gregory – IIT Institute of Design, Chicago, USA; University of Oslo, Norway.
Clive Holtham – City of London University, London, UK.
Lorenzo Imbesi, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Hiroshi Ishii – MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, USA.
Gianni Jacucci – University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Klaus Krippendorff – University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Terence Love – Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Bill Lucas, MAYA Fellow, MAYA Design, Inc., Pittsburgh, USA.
Ezio Manzini – Politecnico of Milano, Milan, Italy.
Mario Minichiello, Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, Birmingham, UK.
Julian Orr – Work Practice & Technology Associates, Pescadero, USA.
Mahendra Patel – Leaf Design, Mumbai, India.
Toni Robertson – University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Terry Rosenberg – Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK.
Keith Russell – University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Liz Sanders – Make Tools, USA.
Maria Cecilia Loschiavo dos Santos – University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lucy Suchman – Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Ina Wagner – Technical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Design-Journal.com

for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.
The Design Principles & Practices Community
This knowledge community is brought together by a shared interest in the process of
design and their conceptual foundations. The community interacts through an
innovative, annual face-to-face conference, as well as year-round virtual relationships in
a weblog, peer reviewed journal and book imprint – exploring the affordances of the new
digital media. Members of this knowledge community include academics, designers,
administrators, educators, consultants and research students.

Conference
Members of the Design Community meet at the International Conference on Design
Principles and Practices, held annually in different locations around the world. The
Design Conference was held at Imperial College London, in 2007; in conjunction with
the University of Miami, Florida, USA in 2008; at Technical University Berlin, Germany in
2009; at the University of Illinois at Chicago, USA in 2010; and at Sapienza University of
Rome, Italy in 2011. In 2012, the conference will be held at the University of California,
Los Angeles, USA.

Our community members and first time attendees come from all corners of the globe.
Intellectually, our interests span the breadth of the field of design. The Conference is a
site of critical reflection, both by leaders in the field and emerging scholars and
practitioners. Those unable to attend the Conference may opt for virtual participation in
which community members can either submit a video and/or slide presentation with
voice-over, or simply submit a paper for peer review and possible publication in the
Journal.

Online presentations can be viewed on YouTube.

Publishing
The Design Community enables members of its community to publish through three
media. First, by participating in the Design Conference, community members can enter
a world of journal publication unlike the traditional academic publishing forums – a result
of the responsive, non-hierarchical and constructive nature of the peer review process.
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal provides a framework for
double-blind peer review, enabling authors to publish into an academic journal of the
highest standard.

The second publication medium is through the book series On Design, publishing
cutting edge books in print and electronic formats. Publication proposals and manuscript
submissions are welcome.

The third major publishing medium is our news blog, constantly publishing short news
updates from the Design Community, as well as major developments in the field of
design. You can also join this conversation at Facebook and Twitter or subscribe to our
email Newsletter.
 Common Ground Publishing Journals

AGING ARTS
Aging and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal The International Journal of the Arts in Society.
Website: http://AgingAndSociety.com/journal/ Website: www.Arts-Journal.com

BOOK CLIMATE CHANGE

The International Journal of the Book The International Journal of Climate Change:
Website: www.Book-Journal.com Impacts and Responses
Website: www.Climate-Journal.com

CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT DESIGN

The International Journal of the Design Principles and Practices:
Constructed Environment An International Journal
Website: www.ConstructedEnvironment.com/journal Website: www.Design-Journal.com

DIVERSITY FOOD
The International Journal of Diversity in Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal
Organizations, Communities and Nations Website: http://Food-Studies.com/journal/
Website: www.Diversity-Journal.com

GLOBAL STUDIES HEALTH

The Global Studies Journal The International Journal of Health,
Website: www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com Wellness and Society
Website: www.HealthandSociety.com/journal

HUMANITIES IMAGE
The International Journal of the Humanities The International Journal of the Image
Website: www.Humanities-Journal.com Website: www.OntheImage.com/journal

LEARNING MANAGEMENT
The International Journal of Learning. The International Journal of Knowledge,
Website: www.Learning-Journal.com Culture and Change Management.
Website: www.Management-Journal.com

MUSEUM RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY

The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum The International Journal of Religion and
Website: www.Museum-Journal.com Spirituality in Society
Website: www.Religion-Journal.com

SCIENCE IN SOCIETY SOCIAL SCIENCES

The International Journal of Science in Society The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Website: www.ScienceinSocietyJournal.com Social Sciences
Website: www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

SPACES AND FLOWS SPORT AND SOCIETY

Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of The International Journal of Sport and Society
Urban and ExtraUrban Studies Website: www.sportandsociety.com/journal
Website: www.SpacesJournal.com

SUSTAINABILITY TECHNOLOGY
The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, The International Journal of Technology,
Economic and Social Sustainability Knowledge and Society
Website: www.Sustainability-Journal.com Website: www.Technology-Journal.com

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING UNIVERSITIES

Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal Journal of the World Universities Forum
Website: www.ubi-learn.com/journal/ Website: www.Universities-Journal.com

For subscription information please contact

subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com

View publication stats