King's College London

Research portal

Studying organizational creativity as process: Fluidity or duality?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Studying organizational creativity as process : Fluidity or duality? / Fortwengel, Johann; Schuessler, Elke; Sydow, Joerg.

In: Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, 03.2017, p. 5-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Fortwengel, J, Schuessler, E & Sydow, J 2017, 'Studying organizational creativity as process: Fluidity or duality?', Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12187

APA

Fortwengel, J., Schuessler, E., & Sydow, J. (2017). Studying organizational creativity as process: Fluidity or duality? Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12187

Vancouver

Fortwengel J, Schuessler E, Sydow J. Studying organizational creativity as process: Fluidity or duality? Creativity and Innovation Management. 2017 Mar;26(1):5-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12187

Author

Fortwengel, Johann ; Schuessler, Elke ; Sydow, Joerg. / Studying organizational creativity as process : Fluidity or duality?. In: Creativity and Innovation Management. 2017 ; Vol. 26, No. 1. pp. 5-16.

Bibtex Download

@article{044668c8b8084627b9cb6914bb41c896,
title = "Studying organizational creativity as process: Fluidity or duality?",
abstract = "This paper contributes to process studies on organizational creativity by developing two competing research agendas. The first perspective, the {\textquoteleft}becoming{\textquoteright} view, depicts creativity as a constant flow of activity that crystallizes every once in a while in unpredictable moments of creativity. The second perspective, the {\textquoteleft}practice{\textquoteright} view, understands creativity as a practised social process, in which structures play the important role of both enabling and constraining individual agents in pursuing creativity as a collective phenomenon. We compare and contrast these two theoretical perspectives, which are based on different process ontologies, and discuss their methodological implications. We argue that the practice perspective offers particular promise, because it allows us to address the important yet paradoxical question of how creativity may be organized and managed.",
author = "Johann Fortwengel and Elke Schuessler and Joerg Sydow",
year = "2017",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1111/caim.12187",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "5--16",
journal = "Creativity and Innovation Management",
issn = "0963-1690",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Studying organizational creativity as process

T2 - Fluidity or duality?

AU - Fortwengel, Johann

AU - Schuessler, Elke

AU - Sydow, Joerg

PY - 2017/3

Y1 - 2017/3

N2 - This paper contributes to process studies on organizational creativity by developing two competing research agendas. The first perspective, the ‘becoming’ view, depicts creativity as a constant flow of activity that crystallizes every once in a while in unpredictable moments of creativity. The second perspective, the ‘practice’ view, understands creativity as a practised social process, in which structures play the important role of both enabling and constraining individual agents in pursuing creativity as a collective phenomenon. We compare and contrast these two theoretical perspectives, which are based on different process ontologies, and discuss their methodological implications. We argue that the practice perspective offers particular promise, because it allows us to address the important yet paradoxical question of how creativity may be organized and managed.

AB - This paper contributes to process studies on organizational creativity by developing two competing research agendas. The first perspective, the ‘becoming’ view, depicts creativity as a constant flow of activity that crystallizes every once in a while in unpredictable moments of creativity. The second perspective, the ‘practice’ view, understands creativity as a practised social process, in which structures play the important role of both enabling and constraining individual agents in pursuing creativity as a collective phenomenon. We compare and contrast these two theoretical perspectives, which are based on different process ontologies, and discuss their methodological implications. We argue that the practice perspective offers particular promise, because it allows us to address the important yet paradoxical question of how creativity may be organized and managed.

U2 - 10.1111/caim.12187

DO - 10.1111/caim.12187

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 5

EP - 16

JO - Creativity and Innovation Management

JF - Creativity and Innovation Management

SN - 0963-1690

IS - 1

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454