Innovations in Education and Teaching International

ISSN: 1470-3297 (Print) 1470-3300 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20

Creativity in graduate business education:

Constitutive dimensions and connections

Ricardo Sosa & David Kayrouz

To cite this article: Ricardo Sosa & David Kayrouz (2019): Creativity in graduate business
education: Constitutive dimensions and connections, Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1628799

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1628799

Published online: 14 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riie20
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1628799

Creativity in graduate business education: Constitutive

dimensions and connections
a,b
Ricardo Sosa and David Kayrouza
a
Design and Creative Technologies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; bDesign
Department, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This conceptual paper examines enabling principles for creative cap- Creativity; paradoxes;
ability in business students. It offers a review of creativity education in curiosity; embodiment;
business and examines learning experiences that support learners in collaboration
their understanding and development of their own personal creative
abilities. A dynamic model is presented that supports the learning
and teaching of creative capability. Actionable strategies to opera-
tionalise the model are included. The paper concludes with
a discussion addressing new and open questions, implications and
future directions to scale and study the teaching and learning of
creativity in graduate business education.

1. Introduction
Creativity refers in a general sense to a uniquely human capacity for imagination that
fosters a dignified and healthy life (Cropley, 2011). Creative potential is strongly shaped
by spatial, temporal, and cultural dimensions (Reckwitz, 2017). This paper is concerned
with the qualities that shape creative capabilities in business education. We present
a systematic examination of teaching approaches, inductively formulate a framework for
reflection and present a set of strategies to reconceptualise the learning and teaching of
creativity (Jahnke, Haertel, & Wildt, 2017).
Creative capability is highly desired and hard to find in business professionals (Levy &
Cannon, 2016). Younger generations are increasingly drawn to organisations where they
can develop their creative potential (Rendell & Brown, 2011). The future of jobs antici-
pates that creativity will be required across a wide range of occupations (Leopold,
Ratcheva, & Zahidi, 2016). In organisations the strategic importance of creativity has
been identified for decades in the professional literature (Randall, 1955). There is also an
increasing interest in identifying effective ways to teach creativity particularly in business
schools (Dewett & Gruys, 2007; Schlee & Harich, 2014). Our work is motivated by
concerns for self-actualisation and a dissatisfaction with approaches that simply teach
creativity techniques or follow formulaic approaches such as design thinking (Glen, Suciu,
& Baughn, 2014).

CONTACT Ricardo Sosa rsosa@aut.ac.nz Design and Creative Technologies, Auckland University of Technology,
D-60, 2 Governor Fitzroy Place, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. SOSA AND D. KAYROUZ

This work builds on a strong theoretical foundation identifying principles and action-
able strategies to foster and enrich creative capabilities in graduate business education.
Acknowledging that creative capabilities cannot be developed through knowledge
transfer alone, we view them as resulting from personal and group experiences that
shape dispositions and behaviour. This work seeks to inform, orient, and inspire teachers
as learners to iteratively touch on key dimensions to constitute effective creativity
development. Here we review the literature on creativity education in business and
present a model to enable creative capability. Actionable strategies are described to
operationalise the model elements and to illustrate how they can inform the teaching of
creativity. The paper concludes with a discussion around the future of creativity in
business education.

2. Background
Creative capability refers here to the dispositions and competencies that enable indivi-
duals, teams, and organizations to generate new business ideas and new strategies for
substantial improvement (Chan & Mann, 2011). Perception is an important quandary in
the teaching of creativity, especially how teachers perceive the creativity of pupils (Aish,
2014), university students (Jahnke et al., 2017), and in general how people perceive the
creativity of others and their own (Karwowski & Kaufman, 2017). The creative process is
not ‘clear-cut’ and can be seen as challenging authority and expertise (Berger, 2014), in
contrast to management culture where risk and uncertainty tend to be avoided. Yet,
ironically, in strategic planning, new ideas that lead to market disruption are highly
valued (Christensen, McDonald, Altman, & Palmer, 2016). Here, we consider creative
capability as essential for individual well-being, as it is for the long-term prosperity of
sustainable business organisations1.
The ‘banking’ approach to education centres around depositing the knowledge of
experts onto the students leading to the disengagement of learners (Freire, 2000).
Instead, we subscribe to dialogical relationships between learners in a shared environ-
ment built around trust and love for learning (Biesta, 2015). Here we also adopt an
inclusive position to learning with the whole body as a primary means of experience
with the world (Merleau-Ponty, 1962).
Whilst creativity training programs have been shown to induce gains in creative
performance, results vary substantially depending on the nature and delivery of such
interventions (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). Consensus exists that training for creativ-
ity works (Chan & Mann, 2011; Dewett & Gruys, 2007; Gallos, 2009; Glen et al., 2014;
Kleiman, 2008; McWilliam & Dawson, 2008), however the more crucial question as to
how those programs work remains open. Several studies of learning initiatives have
demonstrated that creativity can be a strategic skill in business (Dewett & Gruys, 2007;
McWilliam & Dawson, 2008; Schlee & Harich, 2014; Titus, 2007), particularly since busi-
ness schools often fail to encourage creativity (Baker & Baker, 2012). Moreover, some of
the core skills for creativity including uncertainty and ambiguity are actively rejected in
business fields (Titus, 2007). To date, artistic initiatives are widely used to develop
creative capacities that enhance business performance (Gallos, 2009; Schiuma, 2011).
Similarly, design-based approaches are claimed to spark empathetic and innovative
thinking (Glen et al., 2014). Whilst such interventions borrow pedagogical strategies
 INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 3

and practices from visual arts (Baker & Baker, 2012) and design fields (Glen et al., 2014),
efforts to unhook creativity from ‘artiness’ and the associated implications such as
individual talent, mastery, and authorship render creativity less mystical, and show
that it can be developed intentionally and systematically as a product of learning
(McWilliam & Dawson, 2008). The work and language presented here purposefully
moves away from the borrowing of arts or design-based training initiatives
(Greenblatt, 2008) and seeks to distil principles to instigate a variety of creative cross-
curricular learning experiences.
Training programs have often emphasised the development of cognitive skills and
heuristics (Scott et al., 2004), whereas we have experienced the most significant drivers
as those coupled with meta-cognitive processes and personal dimensions that can be
realised through collaboration. Thus, significant outcomes of this work rest in examining
tried and tested learning experiences that have consistently supported learners to
identify barriers to creativity. In summary, the literature suggests a view of creativity in
graduate business education as a synthesis of personal dispositions for knowing and
acting differently from everyday normal practice. Adopting a comprehensive everyday
view (McWilliam & Dawson, 2008), we examine effective approaches to teach creativity
in business schools placing our concerns first with underlying motivations and self-
perceptions that empower learners to create. This debunks ideas of ‘gifted’ and ‘genius’
increasing self confidence in personal and group abilities to imagine and create
(McWilliam & Dawson, 2008).

3. The model: Four constitutive dimensions

This section presents results of a year-long elicitation process of the core elements of
teaching creativity in MBA programmes in Singapore, Mexico, Australia, and Aoteroa New
Zealand. We identified approaches that worked best, those which have failed, and valuable
feedback from employers and students. The authors have different trajectories and back-
grounds, life experiences, and professional careers, yet an increasing intuition developed
about the common elements, core ideas and principles behind our teaching. In interview-
type weekly conversations we cross-examined each other to understand why we had made
certain decisions over the years. Through personal sketching and note-taking, we docu-
mented these exchanges by journaling, and critically reflected on them. In this inductive
process of knowledge creation, intuitions became clearer through seeking language that
made the felt senses of our experiences more explicit (Gendlin, 1982). Grouping, classifying,
and connecting principles led to the clusters mapped in Figure 1.

3.1. Disposition for paradox

We identify a disposition for paradox as essential to stay with ambiguity while seeking
a relational understanding of what is before us. This leads to a flexible and open mind-
set supporting possibilities for radical change and contrasts with pursuing singular or
selective forms of reasoning which often cause context to be lost and prevent further
questioning (Berger, 2014). Research on self-efficacy suggests that a sizeable proportion
of the population holds defeatist views about their own creative potential (Karwowski &
Kaufman, 2017). Nurturing creativity requires a perceptive capacity to constantly remain
4 R. SOSA AND D. KAYROUZ

Figure 1. Four constitutive dimensions of creative capability in graduate business education.

open to all possibilities without readily affirming one culture, discipline, or process over
another (Root-Bernstein, 2004).
A disposition for paradox helps to deal with ambiguity, seize dilemmas, and to
hold the seemingly unsolvable paradoxes that open to new understandings (Götz,
2002). Embracing a paradoxical disposition can defy the general tendency to conform
(Nemeth, 2018) and the inclination to adapt gradual incremental changes that reduce
risk (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). An intentionally cultivated ability to deal and
thrive in uncertainty instigates behaviours that lead to insights recognising new
opportunities and unique possibilities emerging from game-changing ideas. We
have identified useful for this purpose to introduce causal linkages between creativity
and free will (Simonton, 2017) as well as a capacity to accept ‘not knowing’ (Biesta,
2015) and an ability for ‘knowing more and differently’ (Barry & Meisiek, 2010). When
paradoxes are celebrated as complementary, they help to integrate a wide range of
understandings. Support for creative paradox as a hallmark of the creative process
can be seen in Fromm’s dictum: ‘Creativity requires the courage to let go of certain-
ties’ (Fromm, 2013, p. 30).

3.2. Disposition for persistent and pervasive curiosity

An autotelic disposition (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014) activates a persistent curiosity for
knowing and incites learners to continuously adapt and seek new possibilities. Change
is thus viewed as pervasive and unavoidable, including disruptive or radical change that
takes place rapidly and has profound effects, i.e. punctuated change (Jay Gould &
Eldredge, 1993).
 INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 5

Persistent curiosity follows our need to know as we define and pursue goals along
with our desires for safety and certainty. Curiosity is shaped by perception through
orienting attention and intention. Constantly moving between the mundane and the
extraordinary, this aspect of our consciousness is considered here as especially impor-
tant when making an overt effort to identify constraints of habit or examine responses
such as surprise or discomfort. Examining these qualities as disruptions whether voli-
tional or providential, serve as breeches of mundane attention inviting curiosity for
renewed attention, learning, and reflection. This reflective practice as a habit yields
creative leaps in the bridging of apposite concepts during creative synthesis and pro-
blem re-formulation. Whenever and at whatever level of intensity we identify these
breeches, it is imperative to consciously and systematically reconsider them and adjust
our responses and our questions, which are often unexamined. Embodied responses
such as ‘felt sense’ (Gendlin, 2018) are important indicators inferring that attention
includes a persistent and pervasive curiosity that is also being developed about oneself.

3.3. Agency of objects and experience

We identify creative capabilities as being situated in dedicated extrinsic environments
and manifesting in outcomes experienced by others (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Karwowski
& Kaufman, 2017). Accordingly, creative outcomes can be identified through the criteria
of originality and meaningfulness (Cropley, 2011) implying situated knowledge, abilities,
and mastery of materials and techniques relevant to the field of endeavour. In general,
the more refined these skills, the greater the scope for producing creative outcomes.
However ironically, familiarity and expertise may also hinder exploration, playfulness,
and failures that lead to creativity (Kahneman & Lovallo, 2003).
Many advanced abilities become siloed as disciplines or, highly specialised knowledge
and practices described as ‘art of’ and ‘craft of’. Advanced knowledge of materials and an
embodied understanding are necessary to act with them by acting out of the creative
dispositions for paradox and persistent curiosity. Working with bricolage constructions
and random inputs can also help to defamiliarise habitual ways of seeing and believing
(Barry & Meisiek, 2010). A challenge for those teaching creativity is to acknowledge their lack
of expertise or mastery in technical abilities and embodied experience that learners bring to
the group. In other words, only those learning can discover for themselves and cannot be
guided how to be creative within their domains. Due to this embodied and situational
dimension of creativity, those teaching are encouraged to let go ‘banking’ approaches that
attempt to homogenise the learning of creativity (Glen et al., 2014) and embrace the idea
that learners will be creative in ways that are uniquely theirs.

3.4. Empathic collaboration

A shared natural empathy welcomes diversity and promotes collaborative acts of
collective intelligence (Cornell, 2013). This state of resonance leading to co-creative
capabilities in groups are marked in acts of mutual respect and trust, heightened
curiosity, group acceptance to openness to the unknown, and a shared desire to
connect to ‘other’ and the ‘new’ as well as to change and learning, and may be
described by participants as transformational. A considerable part of developing creative
6 R. SOSA AND D. KAYROUZ

capability involves self-learning in the context of others (Wenger, 2009) as well as

actually learning what others know and how they know it. This applies to all aspects
of exploring our collective curiosity, and particularly across cultures, genders, genera-
tions, and occupations.
Sharing learning in a spirit of common humanity opens potential to possibilities
beyond individualistic assumptions of the self (Stolorow & Atwood, 1996). Bringing
people together in dedicated space and time, where dispositions for paradox and
curiosity examine disciplines with high levels of mastery, even the barriers of language
may be challenged with analogues and other means of communication (Barry & Meisiek,
2010). A sustained experience of working in team projects helps develop empathic
collaboration and to identify the challenges and opportunities of creative leadership.
This is often overseen in the teaching of creativity where the focus is on individual
cognition. Clearly direct experience needs to be complemented by explicit learning
activities that explicate creative collaboration including team formation and team roles
(Isaksen & Lauer, 2002), communication, appreciation, and understanding of diverse
ideas (Fruchter, 2001).

3.5. Implications of the model

The four constitutive dimensions in the model were inductively identified as relevant to
address when teaching creativity in business. Two of these dimensions emerged as
inward-facing as they point towards personal dispositions, and two as outward-facing
since they refer to contextual conditions. The re-structured model is shown in Figure 2.
The model promotes autonomous teaching journeys that iteratively take learners across
these dimensions especially using experiential and active learning strategies.
We have identified that learners often arrive with an assumption that creativity is easy
and pleasant, expressing that ‘creativity is intelligence having fun’, an aphorism often
misattributed to Albert Einstein, and reinforced in conventional training programs
(Dewett & Gruys, 2007). Whilst paradoxes, curiosity, embodied experiences, and
empathic collaboration can be fun, the goal in these courses is not enjoyment -
activities involving creative work can be hard, frustrating, disorienting, and challenging.
This is critical because the rewards of creativity are not to have a good time, but are in
pursuit of developing a change agency in order to strategically respond and adapt to
the world around us. As learners discover their own creative capabilities through the

Figure 2. Model dimensions: one pair inward-facing (dimensions 1 and 2) and one pair outward-
facing (dimensions 3 and 4). Learning journeys cross these dimensions.
 INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 7

teaching activities supported by this model, they often stop asking ‘Am I creative?’ or
‘How creative am I?’, and transition to a rich personal and group inquiry of ‘How am I/are
we creative?’. This transformation reflects a shift from a ‘yes/no’ or a ‘how much’ type of
question to a life-long enquiry.

3.6. Actionable strategies to apply the four dimensions

The following strategies demonstrate through action the model dimensions. These stem
from practices that have been consistently effective in business environments across
cultures and learning communities. The goal here is not to prescribe concrete techniques
or activities, but to share strategies that align well with each of the model dimensions. The
goal is to inspire those teaching creativity to reflect on their practice and think of future
possibilities informed by the four model dimensions presented here.
Instructional strategies to cultivate a disposition of paradox (3.1) encourage trust and
build a collective space of safety and dialogue by sharing widely divergent views and
ideas. These activities trigger lively interactions, participation, self-disclosure, and they
foster collective learning that constructively raises an openness to enquiry. As a result,
deeper questions and ways of knowing are revealed that lead to holding paradox. Group
discussions around open-ended questions such as ‘What is creativity?’ are recommended.
Participants can swap roles as interviewers-interviewees and active listeners, i.e.:
‘Listening Triads’. Image association activities can also help learners elicit personal
viewpoints and definitions triggered by visual stimuli such as photographs. Outcomes
of this type of activities include sharing and mapping of the main ideas discussed across
groups highlighting controversies and points of disagreement. Crucially, these activities
bypass agreement and their value is to foster a wide range of viewpoints. Meaningful
contradictions open the door to paradoxes. These activities deliver ways of knowing
more and differently (Barry & Meisiek, 2010).
Strategies to cultivate curiosity (3.2) identify and develop attention and intention in
the group. The resulting awareness is intended to lead to personal understandings of
how they might attend their own patterns of learning and those of others. Suitable
activities can be (or appear as) impromptu, and they are most effective when unan-
nounced, unexpected, and initially unexplained so that they trigger curiosity and serve
as a breach of mundane attention. Crucially, a facilitated discussion helps to share
experiences and impressions revealing diverse perspectives and qualities of attention
across participants. Activities that lead to discussions concerning forms of attention
including stress, learning styles, mindfulness, instructions, distraction, inclusiveness,
disruption, and bewilderment are ideally suited here. These activities should form the
propositional basis for further enquiry and trigger discussions regarding ‘how we know’.
These activities direct enquiry towards the affective and embodied aspects of percep-
tion. New questions about our surrounding environment and people in our everyday
lives raise an appetite for identifying biases, recognising habits, and the iterative cycles
that inform them (Heron, 1992) and to question assumptions. These short experiences
require translation into the world outside the classroom. Learners (and teachers) can
keep a reflective journal via reflective exercises, or through personal notebooks or online
blogs where they describe, analyse, and reflect upon their learning journeys
(Auttawutikul, Wiwitkunkasem, & Smith, 2014).
8 R. SOSA AND D. KAYROUZ

Strategies to reveal the agency of objects and experiences (3.3) provide grounds for
reflection on the role of materials, tools, objects, techniques, and how the surrounding
environment shapes our ideas. Visual interpretative activities are suitable here because
they lead to surprise, curiosity, and empathy (Searles, 2017). The diverse views emerging
from such exercises brings laughter along with new material to what could be seen that
lead to unexpected relational connections. Crucially, learners realise that everything that
they (and others) saw in such interpretative exercises, wasn’t really there, showing that all
humans are perfectly capable of creating new things and new ideas from things around
us, simply by paying attention, engaging, and discovering the extent of our imaginative
capacities. Generative activities (Sanders & Stappers, 2014) can be conducted with
a range of materials that support different ways of thinking (Acuna & Sosa, 2011).
Activities of making support dialogues about a variety of ways of knowing, including
‘thinking with our hands’ (Welch, 1997).
Strategies to inspire empathic collaboration (3.4) reveal the rich and unique expertise
of group members via activities that highlight the synergies between what they know,
and the revelation of mutual ignorance, i.e. things that they did not know that they did
not know. These experiences are oriented to follow a transition from siloed activity to
awareness, appreciation, and understanding of others (whether of different cultures,
disciplines, or organisational areas) (Fruchter, 2001). Suitable ideation activities include
those that feed on ambiguity (Barry & Meisiek, 2010). Unsurprisingly many relevant
activities are not language-based, in alignment with Arthur Koestler’s dictum that
‘Creativity often starts where language ends’. In ideation exercises, students are invited
to define topics or problems that they would like to tackle creatively -rather than
working with simplistic puzzles like the old ‘nine dot problem’. Group ideation activities
require instructors to have substantial experience in facilitation, and should be carried
out applying the appropriate rules and guidelines (Tassoul, 2009). Upon completion and
after sharing the ideas generated, debriefing should include a critical reflection of the
session dynamics and the outcomes achieved. It can be relevant to draw attention to the
tendency to embark on generating ideas to solve the problem at hand, rather than
periodically revisiting what the problem may be (Sosa, Connor, & Corson, 2017).

4. Conclusions
This paper started by questioning conventional approaches to teaching creativity. It
then examined the literature and linked key ideas to inductively formulate learning
experiences that support business students in their understanding and development of
their personal creative abilities. Four constitutive dimensions are elaborated on from
which those teaching creativity can derive and evolve their own repository of mean-
ingful activities for curricular and instructional design. Based on this model, those
teaching creativity may reflect on their practice and re-purpose well-known activities
to explicitly address the dispositions and capacities of the model to ‘unhook’ creativity
teaching from the so-called ‘creative disciplines’.
By modelling these dimensions through what and how we teach, we realised the
importance of movement between dimensions rather than any particular sequence. To
this end, a ‘fortune teller’ embodiment is presented in Figure 3 where the dimensions
unfold into each other. This metaphorical structure represents the constitutive dimensions
 INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 9

Figure 3. ‘Fortune Teller’ enabling mapping and unfolding the model dimensions.

and supports instructional and pedagogical thinking by providing a mapping device to

visualise the connections between the model dimensions. The fortune teller format sup-
ports dynamic views of creativity and provides a way to present to the same dimensions
time and again to allow a gradual and meaningful grasp of their complexities and inter-
connections (Kleiman, 2008). Teachers can use this tangible mapping device to organise
the journey of learning and discovery through the model dimensions that cultivate creative
capability. As an example, when planning a class activity using C-sketching (Genco, Hölttä-
Otto, & Seepersad, 2012), teachers can highlight the importance of collaboration (3.4) and
visual media (3.3) in the introduction and setting of the activity. Upon completion of the
activity, teachers can use the model mapping to organise the debriefing and make sure the
discussion includes openness to multiple interpretations (3.1) and the generative prolifi-
cacy of ambiguity and unintended meanings (3.2).
Future studies need to conduct empirical evaluation of this model and applications in
instructional design. Work is also needed on the relationship with social constructivist
theories of learning and the impact of working modalities between cognitive, affective,
and metacognitive ways of knowing. Anchored in the pedagogical dimensions pre-
sented here, we envision dialogical teaching strategies (Freire, 2000) that inform
a range of interventions from short sessions to entire semester courses, and ultimately
shape entire postgraduate and undergraduate programmes. Contrasted to the prolifera-
tion of facile toolkits for creativity, the work presented here serves to emphasise,
illustrate, and evaluate critical pedagogical efforts across subjects. Further studies can
examine how these constitutive dimensions of creativity can inform the teaching of
entrepreneurial ideation and activity.

Note
1. This definition bypasses the well-known distinction of personal or little-c and historical or
big-C creativity, which relies on the effects of new ideas in the field or society, whilst our
focus is on the capacity to generate new ideas.
10 R. SOSA AND D. KAYROUZ

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Ricardo Sosa is Associate Professor of Design & Creative Technologies at Auckland University of
Technology in New Zealand and Monash University in Australia. His background includes indus-
trial design and teaching design and creativity in engineering and business schools.
David Kayrouz is an independent researcher and lecturer at Auckland University of Technology in
New Zealand. His background is informed through extensive engagement in arts and business as
a practitioner.

ORCID
Ricardo Sosa http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-0702

References
Acuna, A., & Sosa, R. (2011). The complementary role of representations in design creativity:
Sketches and models. In T. Taura & Y. Nagai (Eds.), Design creativity 2010 (pp. 265–270).
London: Springer London. doi:10.1007/978-0-85729-224-7_34
Aish, D. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity in the elementary classroom (Ed.D.). Pepperdine
University, Ann Arbor. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.
Auttawutikul, S., Wiwitkunkasem, K., & Smith, D. R. (2014). Use of weblogs to enhance group
learning and design creativity amongst students at a Thai University. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, 51, 378–388.
Baker, D. F., & Baker, S. J. (2012). To “catch the sparkling glow”: A canvas for creativity in the
management classroom. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 704–721.
Barry, D., & Meisiek, S. (2010). Seeing more and seeing differently: Sensemaking, mindfulness, and
the workarts. Organization Studies, 31, 1505–1530.
Berger, W. (2014). A more beautiful question: The power of inquiry to spark breakthrough ideas.
New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2015). Beautiful risk of education. New York: Routledge.
Chan, J. B. L., & Mann, L. (2011). Creativity and innovation in business and beyond: Social Science
perspectives and policy implications. New York: Routledge.
Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., & Palmer, J. (2016). Disruptive innovation: Intellectual
history and future paths. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
Cornell, A. W. (2013). Focusing in clinical practise: The essence of change. New York, NY:
W. W. Norton & Company.
Cropley, A. (2011). Definitions of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 511–525). San Diego: Elsevier.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi. Berlin: Springer.
Dewett, T., & Gruys, M. L. (2007). Advancing the case for creativity through graduate business
education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 85–95.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Fromm, E. (2013). To have or to be? London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Fruchter, R. (2001). Dimensions of teamwork education. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 17, 426–430.
 INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 11

Gallos, J. (2009). Artful teaching: Using visual, creative and performing arts in contemporary
management education. In S. Armstrong & C. Fukami (Eds.), Handbook of management learning,
education and development (pp. 187–212). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publishing.
Genco, N., Hölttä-Otto, K., & Seepersad, C. C. (2012). An experimental investigation of the innovation
capabilities of undergraduate engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 60–81.
Gendlin, E. (1982). Focusing. New York: Bantam Books.
Gendlin, E. (2018). Saying what we mean: Implicit precision and the responsive order. Selected works.
Evanston, IL, USA: Northwestern University Press.
Glen, R., Suciu, C., & Baughn, C. (2014). The need for design thinking in business schools. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 13, 653–667.
Götz, I. L. (2002). Faith, humor, and paradox. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Greenblatt, S. (2008). Report of the task force on the arts. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University.
Heron, J. (1992). Feeling and personhood. London: SAGE.
Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K. J. (2002). The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 11, 74–86.
Jahnke, I., Haertel, T., & Wildt, J. (2017). Teachers’ conceptions of student creativity in higher
education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 87–95.
Jay Gould, S., & Eldredge, N. (1993). Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature, 366, 223.
Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives
decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81, 56–63.
Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and
identity. London: Academic Press.
Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: Conceptions of creativity in higher education.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 209–217.
Leopold, T., Ratcheva, V., & Zahidi, S. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce
strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf
Levy, F., & Cannon, C. (2016). The Bloomberg job skills report 2016: What recruiters want. Retrieved
from https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-job-skills-report/
McWilliam, E., & Dawson, S. (2008). Teaching for creativity: Towards sustainable and replicable
pedagogical practice. Higher Education, 56, 633–643.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity. Psychological Science,
23, 13–17.
Nemeth, C. (2018). No! The power of disagreement in a world that wants to get along. London:
Atlantic Books.
Randall, F. (1955). Stimulate your executives to think creatively. Harvard Business Review, 33, 7.
Reckwitz, A. (2017). The invention of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Rendell, M., & Brown, J. (2011). Millennials at work: Reshaping the workplace. London, United
Kingdom: PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL). Retrieved from https://www.
pwc.com/m1/en/services/consulting/documents/millennials-at-work.pdf
Root-Bernstein, R. M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy
and creativity. In R. Sternberg, E. Grigorenko, & J. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to
realization (pp. 127–151). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to
making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10, 9.
Schiuma, G. (2011). The value of arts for business. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schlee, R. P., & Harich, K. R. (2014). Teaching creativity to business students: How well are we
doing? Journal of Education for Business, 89, 133–141. doi:10.1080/08832323.2013.781987
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training:
A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361–388.
Searles, D. (2017). The Inkblots; Hermann Rorschach his iconic test & the power of seeing. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
12 R. SOSA AND D. KAYROUZ

Simonton, D. K. (2017). Chapter 4 - Creativity and free-will: Creative thought enhances personal
freedom? Karwowski, Maciej. In J. C. Kaufman (Ed.), The creative self (pp. 65–84). San Diego:
Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-809790-8.00004-2
Sosa, R., Connor, A., & Corson, B. (2017). Framing creative problems. In C. Zhou (Ed.), Handbook of
research on creative problem-solving skill development in higher education (pp. 472–493).
Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0643-0.ch021
Stolorow, R., & Atwood, G. (1996). The intersubjective perspective. Psychoanalytic Perspective, 83,
181–194.
Tassoul, M. (2009). Creative facilitation: A Delft approach. Delft, Netherlands: VSSD. Delft Academic Press.
Titus, P. A. (2007). Applied creativity: The creative marketing breakthrough model. Journal of
Marketing Education, 29, 262–272.
Welch, M. (1997). Thinking with the hands: Students’ use of three-dimensional modelling while
designing and making. Canada: Queen’s University. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/full
text/ED413424.pdf
Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. Contemporary theories of learning. New York:
Routledge.