Creativity for Architectural Education

Now that the instructor has introduced the topic during class….What is your reaction to
the reading on the field of Creativity Studies? Do you agree with the assertations the
author makes? What is your take-away? Did you understand what the “Innovation
Economy” was prior to this reading… and how important creativity is now in the
business world? Do you think it is relevant to Interior Architecture here at Sac State?
How do you feel about collaborating on creative/design work in school? Can you give
an example of how YOU might apply this knowledge? What connections do you see
between Creativity Studies and the lectures on “American Design” in class so
far? What other related topics do you wish to discuss with the class?

Excerpt From Dr. Sledge’s Dissertation: “Multidisciplinary collaboration, dialogue, and
creative efforts across the environmental design disciplines are needed to resolve
problems that architects face today such as dwindling resources, accumulating waste,
obsolescing technologies, and stagnating job opportunities. Because the pace of
innovation is accelerating, a wide array of contributors such as designers, researchers,
manufacturers, contractors, investors, marketers, and distributors are needed to realize
new ideas as new products. Hence, multidisciplinary approaches in design education are
needed now more than ever to encourage and support innovation. Further, an economy
built on innovation is generating new opportunities for designers to create
collectively. According to a new report from the World Economic Forum representing
millions of employees in professional roles, it is clear that creativity at professional work is
going to be one of the most important and in-demand skills in the next 5 years. This
comes from a new Forum report, The Future of Jobs (Links to an external site.), which
took input from an extensive survey of CHROs and other senior talent and strategy
executives from a total of 371 leading global employers, representing more than 13
million employees. The report asked chief human resources and strategy officers from
leading global employers what the current economic and technological shifts mean,
specifically for employment, skills and recruitment across industries and
geographies. They said creativity is going to be the third most important skill overall, as
shown in Table 1.1. Note that creativity was ranked 10th just six years ago.”

Table 1.1. World Economic Forum Ranks Creativity as Third Most In-Demand Skill of 2020

Note. Table retrieved from
(https://www.ideatovalue.com/inno/nickskillicorn/2016/09/leaders-agree-creativity-
will-3rd-important-work- skill-2020/ (Links to an external site.))
Sledge-Creativity.pdf

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 68

architectural education instruction. Based upon the findings, architectural education can employ

dialogue to foster collaboration and agency to tackle systems-level problems. Lastly, combining

dialogue with collaborative design can become a means to address persistent diversity/inclusion

problems (Anthony, 2002; Lehtomäki et al., 2019) in architectural education as well.

Summary of Literature Review on Dialogue for Architectural Education

Scholars have made a compelling argument for the inclusion of dialogue in higher

education to improve communication, enhance understanding, and foster learning. Researchers

have highlighted the generative potential of dialogue to achieve collective intelligence, enable

collaboration, and address environmental responsibility. Empirical research has shown that

dialogue can be transformational in higher education and a necessary skill for community

stakeholder engagement in public architecture. In response, this literature review has highlighted

the omission of dialogue from the repertoire of pedagogies required in accredited architecture

degree programs. It has also revealed the need to better define dialogue terminology, define

what dialogue is, and what it means in the context of architectural education. The review of

literature was broad, but effective in revealing the potential of dialogue for architectural design.

Stream 3: Creativity for Architectural Education

“Creativity is a term that often is used in education, but rarely defined” (Beghetto, 2005,

p. 255). The review of literature on creativity in architectural education begins with a working

definition of creativity to establish common understanding. For this dissertation and literature

review specifically, the definition of creativity aligns with Beghetto (2005), “Creativity involves

a combination of uniqueness and usefulness. Creativity is the interaction among aptitude,

process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is

both novel and useful as defined within a social context” (p. 255). The conceptual framework of

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 69

this study focused on collaborative co-creativity and directed the literature review on creativity

for architectural education, to a “Problem Solving and Expertise” theoretical framework.

To begin, a sense of balance must be maintained when reviewing creativity scholarship

because research has shown creativity is affected by factors beyond ability, education, and

current understanding. For example, (Zenasni et al., 2008) conducted an empirical study that

identified four interrelated factors: the creative person, product, press, and process that affect

creative achievement. Hence, the researchers showed that creativity does not operate in a

vacuum but “it is widely believed that creativity depends on the presence of several factors that

interact with each other such as individual’s knowledge, personality traits, cognitive style, and

motivation” (Mahmoud et al., 2020, p. 181). And although “divergent thinking” has been shown

in the (TTCT) Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966) to be the most correlated

attribute to creative ability, questions have been raised recently on the application of the TTCT in

architectural design (Potur, 016; Hamza & Hassan, 2016). The researcher notes that the TTCT

measures Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, Abstraction of titles, and Resistance to Premature

Closure, which overlap with the RDCA utilized in this study. This third literature stream is not

exhaustive but focused; it situates architecture within “Creativity Studies,” and explores

creativity theories most aligned with architectural education.

Theorizing Creativity in a Problem Solving and Expertise Framework

According to Kozbelt, Beghetto, and Runco (2010), “creative solutions to ill-defined

problems result from a rational process, which relies on general cognitive processes and domain

expertise [of] person, process, & product” (p. 28). This framework has often been used in

architectural education parlance because there are as many different solutions as there are

designers. Indeed, each student aspires to generate a different solution from peers, as a badge of

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 70

honor. Unfortunately, students often view being different as being better in both architectural

school and practice (Tzonis, 2014b). The first edition of the Cambridge Handbook of

Creativity provides insight on creative problem solving in architectural education:

Problem solving has usually been studied in puzzle-problems… but its principles also

apply to ill-defined problems, which are more relevant to creativity. Such problems, like

writing a symphony or designing a house [emphasis added], have goals and operators that

are not pre-specified and that admit multiple “good enough” solutions, rather than one

“correct” answer. (Kozbelt et al., 2010, p. 33).

Hence, architectural design is regarded to be an ill-defined problem with innumerable potential

solutions, and the expectation of architectural design education is not that the students will find

“the solution,” but a “good solution” in the “Problem Solving and Expertise” framework.

Yet, this is not as straightforward as it might seem. Like other design professions,

architecture is a purposeful act undertaken on behalf of clients, and creative expression in

architecture depends upon innate ability and domain-specific training. To explore the construct

of creativity for architectural education more closely, four additional canonical theories from the

discipline of Creativity Studies are proposed for architectural design education: (a) “Four C

Model of Creativity” (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009), (b) “Investment Theory of Creativity”

(Sternberg & Lubart, 1991), (c) “Four Stages of the Creative Process” (Wallas, 1926), and (d)

“Wicked Problems” theory (Sawyer, 2012; Rittel & Weber, 1973).

The Four C Model of Creativity Theory for Architectural Education

First, in their essay, “Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity,” authors

Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) define creativity in orders of magnitude: mini-c, little-c, Pro-C,

and Big-C creativity (see Figure 2.5). First, Mini-c creativity is personally meaningful creative

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 71

expression in a particular sociocultural context to construct personal knowledge; all humans have

this, not only children with whom it is often associated. Second, Little-c creativity, or everyday

creativity, is exhibited by all humans with expressions that are recognized and appreciated by

others. Third, Pro-C creativity is an accomplished level of creativity usually within a specific

domain, including commercial artists and designers, professional musicians, and architects.

Pro-C creatives may achieve fame, but the last category is reserved for the rarest class,

Big-C creativity. This fifth level is recognized as eminent, legendary, genius, and unfortunately

usually recognized posthumously because it is dependent upon the judgment of experts who

cannot fully appreciate this level of creative contribution due to limitations of their zeitgeist. As

examples, Big-C creatives regarded as geniuses in Pennsylvania while still alive were architects

Frank Furness, Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Kahn, and Robert Venturi (Sledge, 2019, p. 106).

Figure 2.5

Graphic Representation of The Four C Model of Creativity Theory

Note. The hypotenuse varies according to the velocity an individual progresses through the creative

stages and the height of achievement. Children exhibit “Mini-c” creativity, adults continue to develop to

possess “Little-c” creativity, and “Pro-C” creatives are creative professionally, such as architects. “Big-C”

creatives pull the domain forward ahead of their zeitgeist. Few people defy the crowd to reach the

zenith of creative achievement and genius. Creativity is a human trait, but no statistically significant

correlation has been found between creativity, gender, or ethnicity (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006).

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 72

The Investment Theory of Creativity for Architectural Education

The second theory from Creativity Studies that applies to architectural education is the

“Investment Theory of Creativity” by Sternberg and Lubart (1991). This theory conceives the

creative effort as an investment that the inventor capitalizes later, i.e., buying low and selling

high, like a skillful investor. It also recognizes that creative people often undervalue their ideas,

and like undervalued stocks, the public often rejects both. Indeed, it is well known that many

artists only become famous after death, long after the “investment” the inventor can reap the

rewards. To combat this outcome, the Investment Theory of Creativity proposes six interrelated

resources that must be cultivated: motivation and self-esteem, Knowledge specific to the domain,

thinking styles adapted to the task and resources at hand, intellectual ability to redefine problems,

personality traits conducive to creativity, and the environment or context of the creator.

The Investment Theory should encourage design students to “invest” their time, talent,

and education to build a “portfolio” of attributes, skills, and contacts to prepare for lucrative

future opportunities. Also, architecture schools usually require many notoriously exhausting

sleepless nights in architectural design studios as a rite of passage. These “all-nighters” could be

recast as long-term investments, making the “sacrifice” palpable in the short-term. This theory

also suggests that the development of personality traits, skills, knowledge, inner-drive, and

immediate context should be “managed” for good grades in architecture school, and “invested”

for monetary rewards in the profession of architecture after graduation, as shown in Figure 2.6.

Creative students must invest in themselves, their creativity, their career, and defy the crowd

although it entails risk and ambiguity. Students who are highly creative also run the risk of

displeasing their professor or supervisor, and experience diminished creative self-efficacy after

their investments are rejected (Beghetto, 2016; Kaufman &Sternberg, 2019; Sternberg, 2006).

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 73

The Investment Theory also relates to architectural education through a sociocultural

framework proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (1988) as a systems theory of creativity. There are

three components of this systems theory that relate to architectural education. First, the creative

domain is the architecture school context in which investors learn the craft, skills, and knowledge

required to invest. Second, the up-and-coming investors (architecture students) push the domain

(the body of knowledge taught in architectural education) forward to evolve through innovation.

Third, architecture professors act as gatekeepers who are experts in the domain knowledge and

judge the worth of new designs. Thus, creativity is a balance of established architecture

professionals who already made a considerable investment to amass great knowledge (wealth),

and the young new investors (students) who are trying to achieve what their mentors have, all in

the space of the domain (the body of knowledge commonly known as architecture. “The mutual

interplay among the components in the systems model echoes interactions between organisms

and environments in biological evolution, which produce meaningful novelty and change”

(Kaufman & Sternberg, 2019, p. 123).

Figure 2.6

Graphic Representation of the Investment Theory of Creativity

INVESTMENTS:
Motivation Knowledge Thinking Styles Intellectual Skills Personality Traits Contextual Impact
Intrinsic Informal Legislative Redefine Problems Risk-Taking Discouraging
Extrinsic Formal Executive Divergent Thinking Tolerance of Ambiguity Supportive
Esteem Domain Judicial Imagination/Insight Resistance to Premature Closure Zeitgeist

PRODUCTS OF CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT

Note. Figure adapted from the work of (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 74

The Four Stages of the Creative Process Theory for Architectural Education

Third, determination and strategic effort must not be discounted for creativity according

to Wallas (1926) “Four Stages of the Creative Process”: preparation, incubation, illumination,

and verification. First, the creative process includes all effort that goes into the design process

before the “design” begins. The “preparation” stage in architectural education could consist of

creativity-enhancing exercises such as “Thinkertoys” (Michalko, 2006) and prior design classes.

Second, it takes time to conceive ideas that are workable in architectural design and there is no

set rule for how long the “incubation” stage will last for everyone or every time. Brainstorming

can be used in this stage to discover questions and ponder ideas. Third, the “illumination” stage

is the “ah-ha” moment that is too-often overhyped as the miraculous gift of a creative genius

working alone. The last stage is skillfully bringing a creative effort to satisfactory closure with

“verification” through convergent thinking. A constructed building is a powerful example of

verification in architectural design in the Four Stages of the Creative Process.

Hence, according to Wallas (1926), creativity is an ephemeral yet strategic undertaking

that develops over four stages of cognition to achieve closure in nuanced creative achievements.

The Four Stages of the Creative Process is well suited to architectural education (Gungor &

Yorgancioglu, 2019; Mahmoud et al., 2020) because it opens the mind to new questions and

ideas, generates dissimilar categories of ideas, iteratively develops a design, and cogently

whittles down disparate possibilities to reach an effective resolution. Although this theory is

well known in Creativity Studies, it is often not taught in architecture schools explicitly,

including the significance of “flexibility” as the ability to generate many different categories of

creative ideas (see Table 4.11 for significance to this study). Included in the “incubation” stage

of the creative process by Wallas (1926), “flexibility” is part of creativity and architectural

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 75

design also (see Figure 2.7). The Four Stages Model aligns with the architectural design process.

Figure 2.7

Graphic Representation of the Four Stages of the Creative Process Theory

Note. Aligning the Four Stages of Creative Process (Wallas, 1926) with the Hierarchy of Collaboration

Strategies for Architectural Education conceived in this study (see Figure 4.7) can help students make

informed decisions about which model of collaboration is best suited for the task at hand in design.

The Theory of Wicked Problems for Architectural Education

Fourth, architectural design falls within the theoretical framework of “wicked problems”

(Lawson, 2005; Mahmoud et al., 2020; Sawyer, 2012; Rittel & Weber, 1973). Architectural

design is considered to be an “ill-defined problem” because there is no singular definition, no

single correct answer; and it has as many solutions as creators. The challenges and opportunities

presented by clients in professional practice or by professors in architectural education are as

varied as the clients and professors that present them. Architectural design is an ill-structured

problem because there is no single path to answer problems and no fixed formula. Problems that

are both ill-defined and ill-structured are “wicked problems” (Sawyer, 2012, p.90).

A wicked problem is a complex social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible

to solve for at least four reasons: (1) incomplete or contradictory knowledge hampers problem

solving, (2) the number of people and opinions involved is large and variable, (3) the solution

entails a large economic burden, and (4) the problem is by nature interconnected with other

problems (Sawyer, 1995). Yet, creativity thrives in wicked problems (Elia & Margherita, 2018)

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 76

because they necessitate divergent thinking, resistance to premature closure, tolerance of

ambiguity, flexibility, and originality- attributes of creative people (Reisman et al., 2016). Each

designer approaches problems differently (Kowaltowski et al., 2010), especially when faced with

ill-structured problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). The level of “wickedness” redefines problems

all the way through resolution, and the impossibility of achieving validity through testing.

Hence, the theory of “wicked problems” is applicable to architectural education (Lawson,

2005), and could help students understand how a work of architecture is conceived and realized

in the built environment. Design is a fluid process that necessarily resists rigidity to negotiate

competing requirements, interests, and creativity. “The Wicked Problems Theory” is applicable

to architectural education (see Figure 2.8) as a group endeavor. Kaufman and Sternberg, (2010)

state, “Creativity is seen as a system that involves people, objects, institutions, and has its own

specific temporal dynamic”(p. 738). Wicked problems in architecture can foster collaboration.

Figure 2.8

Graphic Representation of the Wicked Problems Theory

Note. The Theory of “Wicked Problems” illustrates why some problems are ill-conceived, ill-defined, ill-

structured, and may remain ill-resolved as well (Kowaltowski, 2010). Architectural education should use

heuristics for “meaning-making” and taming the difficult “wickedness” of tricky design problems.

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 77

Observations on Creativity for Architectural Education

It is useful to briefly review a few representative essays by architectural educators on

creativity for context. The review begins by blending three essays, “Creativity real and imagined

in architectural education” (Tzonis, 2014b), “Creativity and knowledge in architectural

education” (Danaci, 2015), and “A new paradigm for design studio education” (Wang, 2010).

Tzonis captures the mystery surrounding architectural design in his opening sentence, “Of all

aspects of architecture what mystifies most the layman is the power of architects as “creators,”

their apparent capability to invent, conceive, and construct “out of nothing” unprecedented

daring forms” (Tzonis, 2014b, p. 331). He traces the history of the architecture profession in an

abbreviated manner that situates the Eurocentric, educated, wealthy, White, male, architect as a

creator divinely inspired by “God” and not to be questioned, a Big-C creative genius.

To cultivate this “magic act” in the 19th century when MIT opened the first school of

architecture in America in 1865 (Sledge, 2019, p. 104), architects worked in isolation behind

closed doors in highly selective design ateliers with others in the gentry. Clients were cultivated

to be thankful to receive creative inspirations while the architects obsessed over aesthetics and

forced solutions to complex problems into watercolor renderings. Pattern books were used to

generate “creative” architectural designs in vogue, which was a well-guarded secret. Thankfully,

those halcyon days of copying the published designs of “starchitects” and passing it on as “the

current cult of creativity as an elite process” (Tzonis, 2014b, p. 333), are long gone.

Tzonis continues by tracing a line from Classical, Neoclassical, and Victorian eras to how

publications became loathe to criticize the creative works of architects. He argues this led to the

myth of the “starchitect” that lingers today (p. 332). These so-called mythical star-architects like

“Howard Roark” (Rand, 1971) are rare, Big-C creatives who usually require little formal

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 78

Education, perpetuating “the myth of the lone creative genius” (Singh & Fleming, 2010).

Next, (Danaci, 2015) extends Tzonis’ criticism of architectural education, “One of the

most important problems in architectural education is that students do not have the ability to

transfer theoretical knowledge into practice. [They have] difficulties about creating their own

design ideas due to their habit of learning by rote…” (Danaci, 2015, p. 1309). From here,

Danaci traces a line to creativity studies with, “Architectural education should give students

cognitive development, and the ability to use it in the creative process. Generally, creative

thinking is believed to occur within a good knowledge hardware. The result of the design can be

more successful if you provide the knowledge when the student needs it” (p. 1311). Finally,

Wang (2010) proclaims in his first sentence, “There is a feeling among many design educators

today that, the discipline has reached a crisis in its development, and that, change is needed

immediately in the way that design educators articulate their epistemology and their

methodology” (p. 173). Wang’s proclamation reflects the origins of architectural education.

Further, scholars of architectural education (Danaci, 2015; Fisher, 2012; Tzonis, 2014b;

Wang, 2010) acknowledge the need to restructure architectural education to enhance creativity

instruction. The literature review on creativity theories has identified diverse scholars to build a

convincing case for including Creativity Studies in architectural education. Accredited programs

have been charged with preparing students to become Pro-C creative professionals. Even the

NAAB has recognized the urgent need for leadership and change. This literature review seeks to

understand the role Creativity Studies could play in architectural education to enhance student

design projects. Wang (2010) explains the problem, “Design is focused on subjective creativity,

but the positivist university paradigm is focused on objective rationality. In order for design

education to become more rigorous- and more academically respectable- it must either become

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 79

more rational, or it must embrace a new paradigm that values creative experience” (p. 173). This

review argues the later: architectural education must become part of the emerging innovation

economy by using the NAAB’s “substantive change” to Program Criteria as a catalyst for more

collaborative learning, collaborative dialogue, collaborative design, and collaborative creativity.

Conjectures on Creativity for Architectural Education

Architecture students surely possess “everyday” Little-C creativity and most achieve Pro-

C creativity as well. This level of creative achievement usually occurs after about 10 years of

training and incubation (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 5), long after students graduate from

architecture school. The framework of “Problem Solving and Expertise” helps clarify what the

goals of creativity instruction in accredited architecture programs should be, and how to better

prepare students for the emerging innovation economy. Further, remembering that creativity is

originality and effectiveness, imagination and usefulness combined (Sternberg, 2006) can

help professors and students express and evaluate creativity in architectural education

In response, this literature review on creativity in architectural education raises questions.

Should Creativity Studies be focused in elective courses empowering students to express mini-c

creativity as personal flights of fancy? Should it be training that helps students develop little-c

creativity in their “everyday” lives? How will formally including “Creativity Studies” in the

curriculum of accredited architectural programs be achieved? Who will teach it with pedagogies

created for architectural design education? What might be the implications and unintended

consequences of incorporating this field of study in all architectural programs, both accredited

and unaccredited? And finally, will the inclusion of Creativity Studies produce tangible

improvements in architecture students’ design projects, and realized buildings? With these

questions serving as a backdrop, this study now turns to review literature on creativity applied to

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 80

assessing and applying creativity in architectural education. The researcher conjectures through

this literature review that integrating Creativity Studies into both the undergraduate and graduate

curricula could be transformational for architectural education, and the profession as well.

Assessing Creativity for Architectural Education

An “exploratory interview research” study, Methods that may stimulate creativity and

their use in architectural education by Kowaltowski et al. (2010) concluded that most design

instructors try to stimulate and enhance creativity in architectural education with various tools,

achieving mixed, uneven, and often ambiguous results. The researchers’ goal was “to ascertain

if design instructors explicitly structure their design pedagogy to enable the enhancement of

creativity and what tools are used for that purpose” (p. 464). The literature review of this study

uncovered 250 creativity-enhancing methods! Titles of the 20 most promising that may

stimulate creativity the best (Clegg & Birch, 2007) are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3

Creativity-Enhancing Exercises for Architectural Education

1. Assumption busting
2. CATWOE
3. Cause-effect diagram
4. Crawford slip method
5. Delphi method
6. Force-field analysis
7. Gallery
8. Input-output
9. Morphological analysis
10. NAF (Novelty, attractiveness, & functionality)
11. Other people’s viewpoints
12. PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act)
13. QFD
14. Random Stimuli
15. Relational Words
16. SCAMPER
17. Six sigma (DMAIC and DMADV)
18. Six thinking hats
19. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats)
20. Synectics

Note. List compiled by Kowaltowski et al. (2010, pp. 460-461) for architectural education instruction.

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 81

Creativity enhancing exercises were studied through interviews and surveys. Structured

interviews with design instructors (n = 43) were held for data saturation from 14 architecture

schools globally: Brazil, Asia, Oceania, Europe, North America, and South America. The same

criteria were applied to each of the 20 methods studied. A protocol based on Hershberger’s

eight-value structure of evaluating architecture was used as a guide for consistency in analyzing

human, environmental, cultural, technological, economic, aesthetic, and safety (Hershberger,

1999). Participants were asked to rank each method for creativity and Chi-square test and P-

values were calculated from the data. It must be noted that interviews were only conducted in

English regardless of the native tongue of the participants- a weakness of this study.

To study the creativity-enhancing methods selected from the literature review, interviews

were used for further the analysis. The interviews revealed that the following six methods were

judged most effective in student design projects, listed in order from most to least at stimulating

creativity: (a) analogy, (b) metaphor, (c) brainstorming, (d) attribute list, (e) mind map, and (f)

Biomimicry (The researchers noted that interviewees criticized Biomimicry as the most difficult

for students to master without parody of nature.) The interviews also revealed that none of the 43

professors interviewed had used (TRIZ) “Theory of inventive problem solving” that codifies

principles to make the creative process more predictable by generating matrixes of 40 criteria

(Kowaltowski et al., 2010). According to the researchers, TRIZ is commonly used in mechanical

engineering, but it is not well known by design instructors, perhaps because it has not …