Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 13:4 (2022) ► pp.684–702

Situated co-operative creativity

| Copenhagen University
A highly important societal aspect of language use are pragmatic creative acts and interactions. The ability to, through multimodal interaction, create something new, is primordial for human sociality. In this paper, I propose a theoretical model that enables detailed analysis of situated co-operative creative actions as these naturally emerge in interactional situations. First, I develop the theoretical model by extrapolating from Charles Goodwin’s theory of co-operative action. I then illustrate the model through detailed analysis of a single case where participants interact in a video-mediated robotic context. The model is situated within ethnomethodological multimodal conversation analysis and based on video ethnographic data. This research contributes to the field of creativity and human pragmatic action by providing an applicable model for Situated Co-Operative Creativity, the SCOC model, which can be used for detailed analysis of everyday creativity.
Keywords: creativity, situated interaction, EMCA multimodal analysis, Charles Goodwin, computer-mediated, video ethnography
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Approaches to creativity
  • 3.EMCA studies of creativity
  • 4.A Goodwinian approach to situated co-operative creativity
  • 5.Developing the Situated Co-Operative Creativity (SCOC) model
  • 6.Analysis of a single case
  • 7.Discussing the analysis in light of the SCOC model
  • 8.Conclusion: Potentials and problems regarding the SCOC model
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 4 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20031.due
References (64)
References
Amabile, Teresa M. 1997. “Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do.” California Management Review 40 (1): 39–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristotle. 1924. Metaphysics (Book IX). Translated by W. D. Ross. [URL]. [URL]
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 2004. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Due, Brian L. 2014. “The Development of an Idea in a Context of Rejection.” Semiotica 2021: 207–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. “Co-Constructed Imagination Space: A Multimodal Analysis of the Interactional Accomplishment of Imagination during Idea-Development Meetings.” CoDesign 14 (3): 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Due, Brian L., and Johan Trærup. 2018. “Passing Glasses: Accomplishing Deontic Stance at the Optician.” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 1(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagerberg, Jan, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson. 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford Handbooks in Business and Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think : Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Conceptual Blending, Form and Meaning.” Recherches en Communication 191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, Lawrence R. 2002. New Directions in Group Communication. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Respecification: Evidence for Locally Produced, Naturally Accountable Phenomena of Order, Logic, Reason, Meaning, Methods, Etc. in and of the Essential Haecceity of Immortal Ordinary Society (I) – an Announcement of Studies.” In Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences, edited by Graham Button, 10–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Ethnomethodology’s Program.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1): 5–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey L. Sacks. 1970. “On Formal Structures of Practical Actions.” In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.): Theoretical Sociology, 338–66. New York: Appleton Century Croft.Google Scholar
Glăveanu, Vlad Petre, Alex Gillespie, and Jaan Valsiner. 2014. Rethinking Creativity: Contributions from Social and Cultural Psychology. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glăveanu, Vlad Petre, Lene Tanggaard Pedersen, and Charlotte Wegener. 2016. Creativity – A New Vocabulary. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glăveanu, Vlad Petre, and Lene Tanggaard. 2014. “Creativity, Identity, and Representation: Towards a Socio-Cultural Theory of Creative Identity.” New Ideas in Psychology 341 (August): 12–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2000. “Action and Embodiment Within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “The Co-Operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics 46(1): 8–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Co-Operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Why Multimodality? Why Co-Operative Action?” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 1 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hallam, Elizabeth, and Tim Ingold, eds. 2008. Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. New York: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
Harmsen, Jan, André B. de Haan, and Pieter L. J. Swinkels. 2018. Product and Process Design: Driving Innovation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, Jeanette Landgrebe, and Ben Matthews. 2012. “Collaborating to Restrict: A Conversation Analytic Perspective on Collaboration in Design.” CoDesign 8 (4): 200–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hougaard, Anders. 2005. “Conceptual Disintegration and Blending in Interactional Sequences: A Discussion of New Phenomena, Processes vs. Products, and Methodology.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10): 1653–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin. 2005. “Material Anchors for Conceptual Blends.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10): 1555–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “The Distributed Cognition Perspective on Human Interaction.” In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. New York: Berg Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Gene H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1997. The Creativity of Action. Translated by Jeremy Gaines and Paul Keast. (1st edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans, and Wolfgang Knöbl. 2009. Social Theory, Twenty Introductory Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koestler, Arthur. 1964. The Act of Creation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
. 1981. “The Three Domains of Creativity.” In Denis Dutton and Michael Krausz, eds., The Concept of Creativity in Science and Arts, Vol. 61. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Landgrebe, Jeanette, and Trine Heinemann. 2014. “Mapping the Epistemic Landscape in Innovation Workshops.” Pragmatics and Society 5 (2): 191–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. “Activity Types and Language.” In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.): Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, 66–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Ben. 2009. “Intersections of Brainstorming Rules and Social Order.” CoDesign 5 (1): 65–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mednick, Sarnoff A. 1965. The Associative Basis of the Creative Process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 2002. Phenomenology of Perception. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014. “The Local Constitution of Multimodal Resources for Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 651: 137–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mumford, Michael D. 2003. “Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity Research.” Creativity Research Journal 15 (2/3): 107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Keith M. 2005. “Collaborative Imagining: The Interactive Use of Gestures, Talk, and Graphic Representation in Architectural Practice.” Semiotica 2005 (156): 113–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Mie Femø. 2012. “Using Artifacts in Brainstorming Sessions to Secure Participation and Decouple Sequentiality.” Discourse Studies 14 (1): 87–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED. 2019. “Create | Origin and Meaning of Create by Online Etymology Dictionary”. [URL]
Osborn, Alex F. 1953. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Philipsen, Johanne S., and Lasse Vôge Jensen. 2018. “‘How Do Signs Come to Mean?’ – Reflections on the Goodwinian Interactional Approach to Empirical Investigations of the Human Semiotic Ecology.” In Co-Operative Engagements of Intertwined Semiosis. Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin, edited by Donald Favareau, 301–5. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, Anne Warfield. 2008. “Harold Garfinkel, Ethnomethodology and Workplace Studies.” Organization Studies 29 (5): 701–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey L. 1992. Lectures on Conversation (With an Introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey L., Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salas, Eduardo, Michael A. Rosen, Shawn C. Burke, and Gerald F. Goodwin. 2009. “The Wisdom of Collectives in Organizations: An Update of the Teamwork Competencies.” In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, C. S. Burke (Eds.) Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches, 39–83. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, Keith. 2011. “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity: A Critical Review.” Creativity Research Journal 23 (2): 137–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuldberg, David. 1999. “Chaos Theory and Creativity.” In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Vol. 1, 259–72. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. (reproduced New York 1961). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, Dean Keith. 1999. “Creativity from a Historiometric Perspective.” In Robert J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of Creativity, 116–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stacey, Ralph D. 1996. Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J. 2000. Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron. 2011. Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tanggaard, Lene. 2013a. “A Situated Model of Creative Learning – Keynote at EERA, Istanbul.”Google Scholar
. 2013b. “The Sociomateriality of Creativity in Everyday Life.” Culture & Psychology 19 (1): 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “A Situated Model of Creative Learning.” European Educational Research Journal 13 (1): 107–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark, ed. 2006. The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity. (1st edition). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Roy. 1981. The Invention of Culture. Revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred North. 1979. Process and Reality. Ed. by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. 2nd Revised edition edition. New York & London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wittenbaum, Gwen M., Andrea B. Hollingshead, Poul B. Paulus, Randy Y. Hirokawa, Deborah G. Ancona, Randall S. Peterson, Karen A. Jehn, and Kay Yoon. 2004. “The Functional Perspective as a Lens for Understanding Groups.” Small Group Research 35 (1): 17–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Seuren, Lucas M., Sakari Ilomäki, Evi Dalmaijer, Sara E. Shaw & Wyke J. P. Stommel
2024. Communication in Telehealth: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review of Conversation-Analytic Research. Research on Language and Social Interaction 57:1 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Due, Brian L
2023. Situated socio-material assemblages: assemmethodology in the making. Human Communication Research 50:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.