Putting the Discipline in Interdisciplinary: Using Speedstorming to Teach and Initiate Creative Collaboration in Nanoscience

The most powerful scientific advances are propelled by creative ideas that cross disciplinary boundaries. Few fields exemplify this as thoroughly as nanoscience, which promises to benefit humankind by delivering radically new technologies - if scientists from different disciplines can work together creatively. Unfortunately, initiating interdisciplinary conversations can be a costly undertaking in the context of academia,, where disciplines are separated by entrenched physical and social structures. We present a new method, called ‘speedstorming’, designed to improve the process of teaching and initiating creative collaboration. Early results show great promise for accelerating the rate of collaboration formation in the field of nanoscience. We found that for teaching and forming creative collaboration, speedstorming is more efficient and more effective than group brainstorming. This article explores the rationale for using such a method in nanoscience research and education, and details the steps to conducting speedstorming sessions to achieve several of common aims in a variety of settings. Limitations and unanswered questions regarding the method are also explored.

[1]  T. M. Amabile The social psychology of creativity , 1984 .

[2]  P. D. Stokes Creativity from Constraints: The Psychology of Breakthrough , 2005 .

[3]  Sheena S. Iyengar,et al.  Creativity as a Matter of Choice: Prior Experience and Task Instruction as Boundary Conditions for the Positive Effect of Choice on Creativity , 2008 .

[4]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm , 1996 .

[5]  Todd Lubart,et al.  Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity , 1995 .

[6]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .

[7]  Fredric M. Jabljn CULTIVATING IMAGINATION: FACTORS THAT ENHANCE AND INHIBIT CREATIVITY IN BRAINSTORMING GROUPS , 1981 .

[8]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[9]  Darren W. Dahl,et al.  Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumers' Creativity , 2005 .

[10]  Patricia D. Stokes,et al.  Selection, Constraints, and Creativity Case Studies: Max Beckmann and Philip Guston , 2005 .

[11]  P. Paulus,et al.  Performance and Perceptions of Brainstormers in an Organizational Setting , 1995 .

[12]  J. Geoffrey Rawlinson,et al.  Creative thinking and brainstorming , 1981 .

[13]  George M. Prince The practice of creativity : a manual for dynamic group problem solving , 1970 .

[14]  Kevin Dunbar,et al.  Concept Discovery in a Scientific Domain , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration , 1990, CSCW '88.

[16]  E. Salas,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. , 1991 .

[17]  Jack A. Goncalo,et al.  Creative Collaborations From Afar: The Benefits of Independent Authors , 2003 .

[18]  J. Schumpeter The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle , 1934 .

[19]  T. Bouchard,et al.  Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. , 1970, The Journal of applied psychology.

[20]  Michael Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. , 1991 .

[21]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Perception of Performance in Group Brainstorming: The Illusion of Group Productivity , 1993 .

[22]  M. Mumford,et al.  The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review , 2004 .

[23]  A. Osborn Applied imagination : principles and procedures of creative problem-solving , 1957 .

[24]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate , 2003 .

[25]  R. Burt Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[26]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Meme tags and community mirrors: moving from conferences to collaboration , 1998, CSCW '98.

[27]  M. Morris,et al.  Do People Mix at Mixers? Structure, Homophily, and the “Life of the Party” , 2007 .

[28]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[29]  Wolfgang Stroebe,et al.  How the Group Affects the Mind: A Cognitive Model of Idea Generation in Groups , 2006, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[30]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. , 1979 .

[31]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .