Article in:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 13:4 (2022) ► pp. 684701
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari
2004A 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “Co-Constructed Imagination Space: A Multimodal Analysis of the Interactional Accomplishment of Imagination during Idea-Development Meetings.” CoDesign 14 (3): 1–17. CrossrefGoogle 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). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fagerberg, Jan, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson
2006The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford Handbooks in Business and Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
2002The 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Lawrence R.
2002New Directions in Group Communication. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967Studies 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “Ethnomethodology’s Program.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1): 5–21. CrossrefGoogle 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
2014Rethinking Creativity: Contributions from Social and Cultural Psychology. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glăveanu, Vlad Petre, Lene Tanggaard Pedersen, and Charlotte Wegener
2016Creativity – A New Vocabulary. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
2000 “Action and Embodiment Within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “The Co-Operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics 46(1): 8–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Co-Operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “Why Multimodality? Why Co-Operative Action?Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 1 (2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hallam, Elizabeth, and Tim Ingold
eds. 2008Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. New York: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
Harmsen, Jan, André B. de Haan, and Pieter L. J. Swinkels
2018Product and Process Design: Driving Innovation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984Garfinkel 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin
2005 “Material Anchors for Conceptual Blends.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10): 1555–77. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joas, Hans
1997The Creativity of Action. Translated by Jeremy Gaines and Paul Keast. (1st edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans, and Wolfgang Knöbl
2009Social Theory, Twenty Introductory Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koestler, Arthur
1964The 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mead, George H.
1934Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mednick, Sarnoff A.
1965The Associative Basis of the Creative Process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
2002Phenomenology of Perception. London & New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2014 “The Local Constitution of Multimodal Resources for Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 651: 137–156. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Keith M.
2005 “Collaborative Imagining: The Interactive Use of Gestures, Talk, and Graphic Representation in Architectural Practice.” Semiotica 2005 (156): 113–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Mie Femø
2012 “Using Artifacts in Brainstorming Sessions to Secure Participation and Decouple Sequentiality.” Discourse Studies 14 (1): 87–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
OED
2019 “Create | Origin and Meaning of Create by Online Etymology Dictionary”. https://​www​.etymonline​.com​/word​/create
Osborn, Alex F.
1953Applied 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey L.
1992Lectures 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
1934The 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.
1996Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J.
2000Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron
2011Embodied 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “A Situated Model of Creative Learning.” European Educational Research Journal 13 (1): 107–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark
ed. 2006The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity. (1st edition). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Roy
1981The Invention of Culture. Revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred North
1979Process 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar