Permalink
2020/2021 KAN-CPSYV3008U Creativity in Organizations
| English Title | |
| Creativity in Organizations |
Course information |
|
| Language | English |
| Course ECTS | 7.5 ECTS |
| Type | Elective |
| Level | Full Degree Master |
| Duration | One Quarter |
| Start time of the course | Autumn, First Quarter |
| Timetable | Course schedule will be posted at calendar.cbs.dk |
| Max. participants | 60 |
| Study board |
Study Board for BSc/MSc in Business Administration and
Psychology, MSc
|
| Course coordinator | |
|
|
| Main academic disciplines | |
|
|
| Teaching methods | |
|
|
| Last updated on 19-06-2020 | |
Relevant links |
| Learning objectives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Course prerequisites | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| None | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Examination | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Course content, structure and pedagogical approach | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The overarching objective of the module is to engage the students with state of the art knowledge production in the field of creativity and organization. By offering an intensive course where both practical methods and in-depth theoretical analysis are presented, the module will help students develop their own understanding of the field and supply them with conceptual and practical tools. Particular attention will be paid to the development of transferable skills – students will work in groups and apply various creativity techniques as well as exploring space creatively, and will critically reflect on these experiences.
The discourse of creativity is rife within society at large, with the necessity for creativity now seemingly elevated above many other aspects of traditional management discourse. Not only is the discourse of creativity familiar, it is instantly recognisable: we know the language of creativity; we know how to identify and classify creativity; we are told how to be creative; and sometimes we are even asked ‘what do you want to create?’ Creativity has become ‘normalised’; our understanding has become framed by the language of creativity, our ‘being creative’ prescribed both substantively and instrumentally. The literature (and language) of creativity is, of course, evolving. We are re-classifying, finding new methods, working on our understanding of the ‘essence’ of creativity. Creativity has become the modern mantra. We have creative industries, creative partnerships and creative approaches of which individuals, businesses and even governments are trying to harness the potential. Creativity is seen as essential for our survival, economically and socially. Hence the need to challenge clichéd representations of ‘creativity’, the typical “creativity is wonderful and we need a lot more of it...” type arguments, and assist students to become more creative (or at least more reflective) in their own practice. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description of the teaching methods | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Each session will consist of a combination of formal lecturer-led presentations on the topic under discussion and interactive workshop-style exercises that will provide the opportunity for students to translate theory into practice. Readings will be provided in good time before each session and it is vital that students undertake the required reading prior to the sessions in order to gain as much value as possible from the lectures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Feedback during the teaching period | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| All students are expected to complete a group project on 'The Creative City' organised around an experiential learning exercise during the third session of the course. Formative feedback will be given in response to the group presentations on this practical project. The purpose here is to encourage students to critically reflect on how one represents and captures experience, and how they can be ‘creative’ in their practices of perceptions and representation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Student workload | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Further Information | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Students are not allowed to use litterature from other courses. Especially CMP students. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Expected literature | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reading
Barthes, R. (1997). The Eiffel Tower and other Mythologies. Los Angeles: University of California. (pp.1-5). [http://lantb.net/uebersicht/wp-pdf/eiffelTower.pdf]
Benjamin, W. (1978). Hashish in Marseilles. In Reflections: essays, aphorisms, autobiographical writings. New York: Schocken Books.
Berman, M. (1984). Signs in the Street. New Left Review, Vol. 144, 114-123.
Bröckling, U. (2006). On creativity: A brainstorming session. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(4), 513-521. [ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00208.x]
De Cock, C. (1994). Creativity in MS/OR: Training for creativity - findings in a European context. Interfaces, 24(6), 59-65.
De Cock, C. (2013). Imagination and Organization: A Review of The Imaginary Institution of Society.Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29(4), 406-408. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.01.002
De Cock, C. (2016). ‘From Creativity to Imagination with Cornelius Castoriadis’ in T. Beyes, C. Steyaert and M. Parker (eds.). Routledge Companion to Reinventing Management Education. Oxford: Routledge. p. 234-248 (chapter 17). [ https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315852430]
De Cock C., Rehn A. & Berry, D. (2013). ‘For a Critical Creativity Studies: The radical imagination of Cornelius Castoriadis.’ in J. Chan & K. Thomas (eds.), Handbook of Research on Creativity. London: Edward Elgar. p. 150-161. [ https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9780857939807.00021.xml]
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel Theorizing about Creativity in Organizations: A Sensemaking Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 286-307. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/259083]
Hall, S. (2000). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage. [chapter 1: https://culturetechnologypolitics.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/stuart-hall-on-representation-1.pdf]
Perec, G. (1974). Species of spaces and other writings. London: Penguin (chapter on ‘The Street, p.47-56) https://monoskop.org/images/b/b0/Perec_Georges_Species_of_Spaces_and_Other_Pieces.pdf (also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNpVpDp_Grc)
Reckhenrich, J., Kupp, M. & Anderson, J. (2009). Understanding creativity: The manager as artist. Business Strategy Review, 20(2), 68-73 [ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8616.2009.00602.x]
Rehn, A. & De Cock, C. (2009). ‘Deconstructing Creativity’ in T. Rickards, M. Runco & S. Moger (eds.),Routledge Companion of Creativity. London: Routledge. p.222-231. [ https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203888841.ch18]
Rickards, T. & De Cock, C. (2012). ‘Understanding Organizational Creativity: Toward a Multiparadigmatic Approach’. In M. Runco (ed.), The Creativity Research Handbook Vol.2, New York: Hampton Press. p.1-31
Sutton, Robert I., & Hargadon, Andrew. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 685-718. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393872]
Thrift, N. (2009). ‘Cityescapes’. In Beyes, T., Krempl, S., Deuflhard, A. (eds) Art and Urban Space. Zurich: Verlag Niggli, 268-284. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||