DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, INNOVATIONS AND CREATIVITY IN THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROSPECT
Sona Manusyan
27.10.2011
Expert of the Center for Information Studies. “Noravank” Foundation
Knowledge has been a basic value in all cultures and at all times. In
modern societies, which are called information, the connection between
knowledge and social processes has become direct and tangible1. There
may be different opinions about the age of knowledge dominance. E.g.
we can dispute whether the intensive production of knowledge is the
monopoly of the information society, or there is no great difference
between the ages in the aspect of creating something new and it is not
the amount of knowledge that has grown but the information about it.
Or whether it is possible that the peculiarity of the age is not
making point of the knowledge but changing the ways of receiving and
spreading information. It can be noticed that the picture has changed
in the aspect of the subjects taking part in creation, possessing and
spreading of information. Despite all the aforementioned it is obvious
that innovation and progress had never been discussed so eagerly
before, thus acquiring the signs of speeding-up. Classical convertion
knowledge, which is acquired and imparted, is not enough any more for
the claims on deveopment and now primary importance is assigned to the
creativity, ideas of innovation, in which the intellectual potential
is directed rather to the production and testing of the knowledge, than
to acquiring and reproduction; new approaches which are not compulsory
but supposedly effective are welcomed. Such a situation is promoted
by the fact that the new times are characterized by uncertainty and
volatility of the environment (social and physical), which demand
flexibility of perception and actions, alternative definitions of
tolerance. It is not a mere chance that the notion of innovation has
penetrated from the engineering into social sciences and today it
is a necessary component of the effective projects concerning social
changes, management, reforms of social structures.
Innovation is a broader notion than simply mechanical invention
or scientific discovery. It includes a wide range – from the
modernization of agricultural means to the social engineering
(reforming of social subjects, processes and structures). There
are innovation technologists in areas of science, education and
governance. In the states, which carry out clearly elaborated policy
of science, the innovation is mentioned as topical direction in
the aspect of the political, economic structures, state priorities,
purposes of the educational institutions; it is included in the names
courses of many social sciences2. Innovation is closely connected
with creativity which arouses eager interest. It can also be found
in almost all the leading western universities and it is not only
studied but it is taught either. The courses on creativity are mainly
included in three areas of specialization – psychology and education,
business and engineering and technologies. Creativity is a mandatory
part of the programmes of the universities with high ratings; in Yale,
Harvard, Stanford, Connecticut and others the programmes are headed
by internationally celebrated and leading specialists in the spheres
of creativity theory and technologies3.
In the spirit of the modern conceptions of the periods of
civilizational development and power of knowledge (Risman, Yashida,
Toflerner and others), the Japanese “Nomura” Institute singled out
in its conception four ages of economic development – agricultural,
industrial, information and the 4th age is creative (to which a smooth
transition is now taking place), i.e. the age of constant innovations.
Expounding this idea D. Pink calls the last period conceptual; he
considers the creators and “empathizers” the bearers of that4.
Today the studies of the creativity and practical elaborations
directed to its development are one of the main areas of progressive
psychology. In fact the studies of creativity are directed to reveal
inner psychological (cognitive, emotional) mechanisms of innovative
or heuristic activity. Against the background of quick social changes
and diversification of information, creativity is gradually becoming
more important human ability. In this context we can get an insight
into knowledge-social development situation by the consideration of
the role given to creativity in different societies.
Perception of creativity and components of creative process Creativity
can generally be defined as a mental process, during which new ideas
and concepts are generated or new ties between existing ideas and
concepts are set. It is closely connected with imagination (more than
with thinking) process and related to the need of a human being for
discovery. As a result of statistical researches of the founder of
psychometric studies of creativity J. Gilford and later I.
Torens, creativity was singled out as a separate aspect of human
mental activity abck in 1960s, thus being separated from the
intelligence quotient5. The notion of creativity is closely
interconnected and sometimes it is even used as a synonym of
divergent thinking, i.e. generating several possible solutions to
one set problem. M. Mumford, summarizing the scientific perceptions
of creativity, considers production of innovative, useful results as
a key characteristic of creative process. Let us mention that such
a product may be in form of instrument, piece of art, as well as
programme directed to the settlement of the social problems and etc.
Linda Naiman6 characterizes creativity as an act of implementation
of innovative ideas thus finding that for considering something as
creative two components are needed – idea and implementation. This is
the difference between creativity and imagination. Thus, for common
person creativity can be considered as any manifestation of innovative
approach, from academic aspect the production of the intellect should
be characterized not only from the point of view of originality but
also by reasonability and ability to be implemented. Even more,
creativity is directly connected with the reasonability of the
human vital activity. It is, according to G. Valas, a characteristic
inherited from evolutionary process and it allows people adapting
themselves to quickly changing environment7. Thus the creative
production is not simply new, but it is of pragmatic value either. And
the value and importance of the innovative idea is a result of social
evaluation and it depends on preferences of the given age and society.
In order to distinguish between creativity “for no reason” and
effective creativity, which has a social impact, the theorists
also single out creativity of historical importance (h-creativity)
and personal creativity (p-creativity) or correspondingly Big C and
Little C8.
While speaking about the connection between creativity and social
progress greater importance is attached to boosting mostly this big,
social creativity “C” factor, though the h-creativity is acquired
through the development of the creative thinking in persons (such
an element is a characteristic of organization of the American
higher education system). Let us also mention that though the social
usefulness of the creativity is an asserted viewpoint, till now the
social attitude to this subject is still ambiguous and there is some
criticism connected with exaggerated evaluation of the creativity.
Thus, it is already outlined that different degrees of importance are
attached to innovation and creativity in different societies. And
it is founded on both social-political and cultural-psychological
differences.
Creativity and its consequence in different cultures While speaking
about the cultural peculiarities of creativity we first of all mean
not the cultural differences of creativity as a kind of the level of
perceptiveness, but as differences in its comprehension and evaluation,
which derive from the differences in priority cultural values and
from the purpose, to which the acquisition of knowledge serves. Thus,
the American concept of creativity is based on the strict pragmatism
and successive boosting of creativity is directly put within the
context of technical and social progress. Simply said, creativity is
good not because it is beautiful but because it is useful and it is
useful because it brings to pragmatic result, i.e.
innovations which help you to rule the world. This is seeming paradox
when such a spontaneous phenomenon as creative activity is arranged
and directed by non-spontaneous efforts. The importance of creativity
is so much stressed in official, academic and everyday discourse
that in consequence it was stuck in an average representative of the
American society (especially those receiving education), who should
not necessarily be creative, as a part of self-characteristics and
self-perception. Thus, even if the student is not notable for original
thinking and fineness of intellect, he tends to underline creativity
while speaking about his educational process and education in the US
in general, due to which they achieve important joint or individual
results. In European tradition this awareness-raising process is
deprived of such a direct pragmatism and the knowledge acquisition in
itself is a purpose. Within this framework the creativity is also “for
no special reason”, i.e. non-instrumental or at least it preserves the
element of spontaneity. In oriental systems the notion of creativity is
mostly connected with harmony, being a part of nature, and creativity
is rather taken as a part of a holistic, integral process of life than
as a separate sphere of activity which should be organized9. Such
a drastic delimitation can of course be questioned by an example of
powerful Japanese innovations, but this case deserves special scrutiny.
In whole, it is notable that those different perceptions of creativity
also reflect differences in systems of values where on one side we
have a progress, assessment of individual achievements, changes in
natural and social environment, and on the other side we have harmony,
adaptation, collectivist orientation and unconditional acceptance
instead of changing.
So, though today it is more often spoken about the place and role
of the knowledge in the time aspect, i.e. as the tendencies which go
parallel to shifting of the civilizational ages, the variations are
also possible from culture to culture, and from society to society. No
matter how universal the appraisal of the knowledge and positive
interest of a human being in something new are, innovation, as an
integral part of progress and as an organized process is particularly
characteristic of western societies or at least they managed to do it
better till now. Their model deserves attention particularly because,
as Grigoryants correctly mentions, the elements of information society
had penetrated in all the societies despite the stage of modernization
they are on10. This situation, alongside with the risks of being
sidelined, opens prospects for rises and keeping pace with the whole
world, in spite of the “local period” of development of the country
and its position. The implementation of such goals firstly demands,
of course, knowledge of your own resources in the aspect of collective
creativity. There are researches devoted to the creativity in Armenia,
but they are not directed to the study of the collective creativity.
There are no social and psychological studies devoted to the group
creative processes and inner and situational factors promoting them,
modes of cooperation within those processes, their efficiency,
the influence of the cultural, social and political contexts on the
creativity and number of other aspects.
The cultural differences in appraisal of knowledge can be observed
while considering not only creativity but other notions of intellectual
sphere either. Thus, all the cultures may make a point of development
but they can mean different things under that development.
Thus in Armenian adjective “Õ¦Õ¡O~@Õ£Õ¡O~AÕ¡Õ®” characterizes
large-minded, erudite, educated person, while in English “developed”
does not have this meaning and it is not used for people and instead
it has a kind of “technological” meaning. All this allows singling
out knowledge in the light of general notion of knowledge-value as
value-facility and value-goal. In this stage it is difficult to say
which of the approaches is more characteristic of our society. We can
make only forward estimates by mentioning that it has shifted from
value-goal to value-end in itself but it has not acquired the status of
value-facility yet. On the other hand recently different initiatives
on knowledge and creativity (there is a definite unintentional
synchronism between them, which contains potential for result-oriented
synergy) has alternated each other fast. In particular, educational
institutions have been established where innovations and creativity
are inscribed in the goals and directions of their activity; for the
first time creativity is announced as a collective aim (e.g. Tumo,
Ayb School). Instead of forecasts on viability and efficiency of those
initiatives it can be at least stated that those are not isolated
cases but a part of general tendency which seems to be naturally
enabled. This positive tendency is in accord with the circumstance
that creativity, as a mechanism of innovations and tasks solutions,
is rather collective than individual action which has a characteristics
of cooperation. Thereat, within-group diversity (including approaches)
and organization of optimal complementarity of those diverse approaches
are important aspects for that collective creative process.
1 Ô³Õ”Õ¿Õ¥Õ¬Õ”O~DÕ¶ Õ¸O~B Õ”Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸O~BÕ©ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ¶Õ¨
Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Õ¯Õ¡Õ¿Õ¾Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¡O~@Õ¡Õ¯Õ¸O~BÕ©ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ´Õ¥Õ” (2006),
Ô³.Ô³O~@Õ”Õ£Õ¸O~@ÕµÕ¡Õ¶O~A, Õ~DÕ¡Õ½ 1, Ô·.Ô¹Õ¸O~FÕ¬Õ¥O~@, Õ~DÕ¡Õ½ 2,
ÔµO~@O~GÕ¡Õ¶, Ô¶Õ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¡Õ¯-97O~I
2
3
4 Pink, D.H. (2005). A Whole New Mind: Moving from the information
age into the conceptual age. Allen & Unwin
5 Mark A., Runco and Steven R. Pritzer (1999). Encyclopedia of
Creativity, Vol. 1. Academic Press.
6 Naiman L., What is creativity,
7 Simonton, D.K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives
on creativity, Oxford University Pres.
8 James C., Kaufman and Robert J. Sternberg (2011). The
Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press;
9 Retrieved
23 October 2010
10 Ô³Õ”Õ¿Õ¥Õ¬Õ”O~DÕ¶ Õ¸O~B Õ”Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸O~BÕ©ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ¶Õ¨
Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Õ¯Õ¡Õ¿Õ¾Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¡O~@Õ¡Õ¯Õ¸O~BÕ©ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ´Õ¥Õ” (2006),
Ô³.Ô³O~@Õ”Õ£Õ¸O~@ÕµÕ¡Õ¶O~A, Õ~DÕ¡Õ½,1, Ô·.Ô¹Õ¸O~FÕ¬Õ¥O~@, Õ~DÕ¡Õ½ 2,
ÔµO~@O~GÕ¡Õ¶, Ô¶Õ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¡Õ¯-97O~I
”Globus National Security”, Issue 5, 2011
——————————————————————————–
Another materials of author
â~@¢SPECIFIC SITUATION OF THE AZERBAIJANI ANTI-ARMENIAN
PROPAGANDA[14.10.2010] â~@¢ISSUES OF NATIONAL IDENTITY PRESERVATION
IN THE ARMENIAN DIASPORA: SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE[08.06.2010]