Friday, August 19, 2005
Interests
We were told by the faculty to start trying to figure out some of our interests in research now. My overarching interest is obviously in creativity, but I must narrow that down somewhat before I can start doing any real research. One of the very first things I should do is line things out a little first.
There are a few ways in which creativity is looked at. The first is the creativity of one: one individual doing creative things. The creativity of one could be an artist working alone or someone making a major breakthrough in cancer research. Then their is the creativity of a few: small groups working developing creative solutions to difficult problems. I would argue there really is very little, maybe even no, creativity of one these days. To be creative and to meet all of the creativity requirements a person's work must be judged in a field and domain. To boot, often, researchers require the work of others, either directly in the lab with them or indirectly through conferences and papers, to develop new ideas. But, for now, we will leave the creativity of one simply because it leaves open some interesting research topics. And finally, the creativity of many. The creativity of many would be, sort of, the way in which several groups of few combine together and effect groups of others. Of these three views, my interests lie in the creativity of one and of few.
The things I find interesting in the creativity of one may be out of the reach of Georgia Tech. Much of this current research relies on brain scans and super computing. Now, if we have those capabilities or I can gain access to those capabilities, I would love to work in these areas. Right now, creativity comes from the ether. It would be great to start pointing out, no, this is where creativity comes from and this is why some are more creative than others. But that seems a long way off.
The creativity of few is more in line with what is currently done at Georgia Tech or, at least, I believe it is in line with what is going on at Georgia Tech. I have already stated my interest in finding out what happens to creativity in the long-run and the short-run due to out sourcing. I'm also interested in what happens when organizations work to change their culture to one that is more creative. I'm sure effort is required to keep things at that level. What is required to keep things up? How quickly does it slide back? What are the implications to leadership?
Of course, now that I'm in a program and will start working on real research, I probably won't be able to blog about this stuff. As it would turn out, I have to keep all of this hush hush until I publish, otherwise I might not get to publish. Kind of sucks. I hope you all reading this weren't too interested in what I had to say about creativity.
There are a few ways in which creativity is looked at. The first is the creativity of one: one individual doing creative things. The creativity of one could be an artist working alone or someone making a major breakthrough in cancer research. Then their is the creativity of a few: small groups working developing creative solutions to difficult problems. I would argue there really is very little, maybe even no, creativity of one these days. To be creative and to meet all of the creativity requirements a person's work must be judged in a field and domain. To boot, often, researchers require the work of others, either directly in the lab with them or indirectly through conferences and papers, to develop new ideas. But, for now, we will leave the creativity of one simply because it leaves open some interesting research topics. And finally, the creativity of many. The creativity of many would be, sort of, the way in which several groups of few combine together and effect groups of others. Of these three views, my interests lie in the creativity of one and of few.
The things I find interesting in the creativity of one may be out of the reach of Georgia Tech. Much of this current research relies on brain scans and super computing. Now, if we have those capabilities or I can gain access to those capabilities, I would love to work in these areas. Right now, creativity comes from the ether. It would be great to start pointing out, no, this is where creativity comes from and this is why some are more creative than others. But that seems a long way off.
The creativity of few is more in line with what is currently done at Georgia Tech or, at least, I believe it is in line with what is going on at Georgia Tech. I have already stated my interest in finding out what happens to creativity in the long-run and the short-run due to out sourcing. I'm also interested in what happens when organizations work to change their culture to one that is more creative. I'm sure effort is required to keep things at that level. What is required to keep things up? How quickly does it slide back? What are the implications to leadership?
Of course, now that I'm in a program and will start working on real research, I probably won't be able to blog about this stuff. As it would turn out, I have to keep all of this hush hush until I publish, otherwise I might not get to publish. Kind of sucks. I hope you all reading this weren't too interested in what I had to say about creativity.
# posted by chilort @ 9:59 AM 
