Share:


Creativity in virtual teams: bridging the gap between professional wisdom and scientific insights

    Stéphanie Buisine Affiliation
    ; Jérôme Guegan Affiliation

Abstract

Following the growing body of scientific literature dedicated to the effects of virtual tools and environments on creative processes, we were interested in examining how professional creativity facilitators perceive these technologies and the extent to which they might support their dissemination. To this end, we conducted a workshop with 19 professional facilitators in which they could experience creativity in a virtual environment. Their ratings of the potential impact of such tools on session facilitation, on sociocognitive processes of creativity and on group motivation were collected twice: before and after the virtual session. The results show that their perception of the potential benefits of virtual environments decreased after the test. They mentioned many limitations of the technology with regard to usual facilitation process. Moreover, their expert perception of the creative process sometimes appeared contradictory to scientific results obtained in the domain. We discuss these results and provide design perspectives to make virtual technologies more acceptable and usable for creativity facilitators, in order to allow more population to benefit from their positive effects on group creativity.


Santrauka


Remiantis didėjančiu mokslinės literatūros, skirtos virtualių priemonių ir aplinkos poveikiui kūrybiniuose procesuose, kiekiu, nagrinėjama, kaip profesinės išminties fasilitatoriai suvokia šias technologijas ir mastą, kuriuo jie galėtų sustiprinti savo veiklos sklaidą. Šiuo tikslu surengtas seminaras, kuriame dalyvavo 19 profesionalių fasilitatorių. Seminare jie turėjo galimybę įgyti kūrybiškumo patirties virtualiojoje aplinkoje. Tokių priemonių galimo poveikio vertinimai sesijos palengvinimo, kūrybiškumo sociokognityvinių procesų ir grupės motyvacijos aspektais buvo atlikti du kartus – prieš ir po virtualiosios sesijos. Rezultatai rodo, kad jų virtualiosios aplinkos teikiamos galimos naudos suvokimas sumenko po atlikto bandymo. Jie paminėjo daugybę technologijų keliamų apribojimų, susijusių su įprastine fasilitacija. Be to, jų ekspertinis kūrybiškumo proceso suvokimas kartais atrodė prieštaraujantis šioje srityje gautiems moksliniams rezultatams. Rezultatai aptarti ir pateiktos su projektavimu susijusios perspektyvos, kad virtualiosios technologijos taptų priimtinesnės ir naudojamos kūrybiškumo fasilitatorių ir kad didesnė populiacijos dalis gautų naudos iš jų pozityvaus poveikio grupės kūrybiškumui.


Reikšminiai žodžiai: įsisavinimas, kūrybiškumo fasilitacija, inovacija, priemonė, virtualioji aplinka.

Keyword : adoption, creativity facilitation, innovation, tool, virtual environment

How to Cite
Buisine, S., & Guegan, J. (2019). Creativity in virtual teams: bridging the gap between professional wisdom and scientific insights. Creativity Studies, 12(2), 198-210. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2019.576
Published in Issue
Jul 3, 2019
Abstract Views
134
PDF Downloads
135
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6

Bessière, K., Seay, A. F., & Kiesler, S. (2007). The Ideal Elf: identity exploration in world of Warcraft. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(4), 530-535. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9994

Bonnardel, N., Forens, M., & Lefevre, M. (2016). Enhancing collective creative design: an exploratory study on the influence of static and dynamic personas in a virtual environment. The Design Journal, 19(2), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2016.1129145

Buisine, S., Guegan, J., Barré, J., Segonds, F., & Aoussat, A. (2016). Using avatars to Tailor Ideation process to innovation strategy. Cognition, Technology & Work, 18(3), 583-594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0378-y

Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: more heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 531-537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.531

DeRosa, D. M., Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2007). The medium matters: mining the long-promised merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic group brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1549-1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.003

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497-509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497

Ferguson, R. (2011). Meaningful learning and creativity in virtual worlds. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 169-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2011.07.001

Fitzsimons, G. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Automatic effects of brand exposure on motivated behavior: how Apple makes you “Think Different”. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1086/527269

Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313-1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946

Guegan, J., Buisine, S., Mantelet, F., Maranzana, N., & Segonds, F. (2016). Avatar-mediated creativity: when embodying inventors makes engineers more creative. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.024

Guegan, J., Nelson, J., & Lubart, T. (2017a). The relationship between contextual cues in virtual environments and creative processes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(3), 202-206. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0503

Guegan, J., Segonds, F., Barré, J., Maranzana, N., Mantelet, F., & Buisine, S. (2017b). Social identity cues to improve creativity and identification in face-to-face and virtual groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 140-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.043

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Kay, A. C., Wheeler, S. Ch., Bargh, J. A., & Ross, L. (2004). Material priming: the influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.06.003

Kerr, D. S., & Murthy, U. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: a comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(4), 381-399. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000042960.38411.52

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123

Kramer, Th. J., Fleming, G. P., & Mannis, S. M. (2001). Improving face-to-face brainstorming through modeling and facilitation. Small Group Research, 32(5), 533-557. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200502

Leggett Dugosh, K., & Paulus, P. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(3), 313-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.009

McKinlay, A., Procter, R., & Dunnett, A. (1999, 14–17 November). An investigation of social loafing and social compensation in computer-supported cooperative work. Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 249-257). International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work 1999. Phoenix, Arizona, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/320297.320327

Meadows, M. S. (2008). I, Avatar: the culture and consequences of having a second life. Project: Voices That Matter. Morgan, B. (Project Ed.). Berkley: New Riders.

Michinov, N. (2012). Is electronic brainstorming or brainwriting the best way to improve creative performance in groups? An overlooked comparison of two idea-generation techniques. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(S1), E222–E243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01024.x

Michinov, N., & Primois, C. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: new evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 11-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.004

Nelson, J., & Guegan, J. (2019). “I’d like to be under the sea”: contextual cues in virtual environments influence the orientation of idea generation. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.001

Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 535-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00500-0

Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 531-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00040-4

Offner, A. K., Kramer, Th. J., & Winter, J. P. (1996). The effects of facilitation, recording, and pauses on group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27(2), 283-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496272005

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11(4), 633-646.

Paulus, P. B., Kohn, N. W., Arditti, L. E., & Korde, R. M. (2013). Understanding the group size effect in electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 44(3), 332-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413479674

Paulus, P. B., Nakui, T., Putman, V. L., & Brown, V. R. (2006). Effects of task instructions and brief breaks on brainstorming. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 206-219. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.3.206

Peña, J., & Blackburn, K. (2013). The priming effects of virtual environments on interpersonal perceptions and behaviors. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 703-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12043

Peña, J., Ghaznavi, J., Brody, N., Prada, R., Martinho, C., Santos, P. A., Damas, H., & Dimas, J. (2017). Effects of human vs. computer-controlled characters and social identity cues on enjoyment: mediation effects of presence, similarity, and group identification. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/33040977/Effects_of_Human_vs._Computer-_Controlled_Characters_and_Social_Identity_Cues_on_Enjoyment_Media-tion_Effects_of_Presence_Similarity_and_Group_Identification

Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(3), 238-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 161-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049

Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: the effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 933-946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.014

Rosenberg, R. S., Baughman, Sh. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2013). Virtual superheroes: using superpowers in virtual reality to encourage prosocial behavior. PloS ONE, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055003

Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (1997, 3–5 April). Preventing social loafing in the collaborative technology classroom. Proceedings of the 1997 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research (pp. 84-86). ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research 1997. San Francisco, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/268820.268870

Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 427-459.

Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the “social” in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-65). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004001

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492-1512. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 87-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.87

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relation (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2008). Cues to identity in online dyads: effects of interpersonal versus intra-group perceptions on performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(2), 96-111. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.2.96

Uribe Larach, D., & Cabra, J. F. (2010). Creative problem solving in second life: an action research study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00550.x

Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 460-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004002

Ward, Th. B., & Sonneborn, M. S. (2009). Creative expression in virtual worlds: imitation, imagination, and individualized collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(4), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016297

Williams, S. D. (2002). Self-esteem and the self-censorship of creative ideas. Personnel Review, 31(4), 495-503. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480210430391

Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E. A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and individual productivity within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37(4), 389-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01181.x

Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). The difference between being and seeing: the relative contribution of self-perception and priming to behavioral changes via digital self-representation. Media Psychology, 12(2), 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260902849943

Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The proteus effect: the effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x

Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The proteus effect: implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36(2), 285-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208330254

Yoon, G., & Vargas, P. T. (2014). Know thy avatar: the unintended effect of virtual-self representation on behavior. Psychological Science, 25(4), 1043-1045. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613519271