2.1 The Nature of Knowledge

On an intuitive level, knowledge is a readily understandable concept.  It encompasses the processes of learning, perception, and discovery as well as the idea of understanding.  Providing a more precise definition and a more in-depth understanding of knowledge requires breaking it down by type—how it is acquired and how it is used.

In general knowledge is acquired in bits and pieces, and with various degrees of understanding (Salomon & Perkins, 1998).  The most common division of knowledge is used in logic, which classifies it as either deductive or inductive.  Deductive knowledge implies understanding gained by moving from general theories to specific hypotheses, and then testing those hypotheses through observation.  If the result is a validation of the hypothesis, the original theory can be confirmed.

The process for obtaining inductive knowledge travels in the opposite direction.  It starts with specific observations and attempts to detect patterns, or significant events, and use them to form hypotheses.  These are then developed into theories.
Research conducted to determine inductive knowledge is very different from research conducted in pursuit of deductive knowledge.  It is much less restrictive at the outset, and is more readily revised as it is developed.  Deductive research is more likely to focus on the narrow demands of proving or disproving a particular hypothesis.  In practice, it is likely that few research projects will be exclusively inductive or deductive.

2.2 Models of Creativity

The connection between induction and creativity is so strong that the two concepts are practically synonymous.  Mihalyi Czikszentmihalyi attempts to model this process by illustrating the cyclical flow of reasoning through inductive to deductive and back to inductive reasoning.  [link to inductive deductive circle]  The real inductive leap takes place when the researcher moves from observation to generalization, a moment of creativity.  Czikszentmihalyi discusses this as a five step process, the most time consuming of which is the first:

1.      Preparation
The first is a period of preparation--becoming immersed, consciously or not, in a set of challenging issues that are interesting and provoke curiosity.  (Csikszentmihalyi 1996)

2.      Incubation
The second phase of the creative process is a period of incubation, during which ideas ferment below the threshold of consciousness. It is during this time that unusual connections are likely to be made. When people intend to solve a problem consciously, people process information in a linear, logical fashion. But when ideas interact with each other without intentional intervention that leads down a narrow pathway, unpredicted combinations may appear. (Csikszentmihalyi 1996)

3.      Insight
The third component of the creative process is insight, sometimes called the “Aha!” moment, the instant when Archimedes cried out “Eureka!” as he stepped into the bath, when the pieces of the puzzle fall together. In real life, there may be several insights interspersed with periods of incubation, evaluation, and elaboration. (Csikszentmihalyi 1996)

4.      Evaluation
Fourth in the processes of creativity is evaluation, when the person must decide whether the insight is valuable and worth pursuing. This is often the most emotionally trying part of the process, when one feels most uncertain and insecure. This is also when the internalized criteria of the domain, and the internalized opinion of the field, usually become prominent. (Csikszentmihalyi 1996)

5.      Execution
The fifth and final component of the creative process is elaboration. It is probably the one that takes up the most time and involves the hardest work. This is what Edison was referring to when he said that creativity consists of 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. (Csikszentmihalyi 1996)
However, this classical analytical framework leading from preparation to elaboration gives a severely distorted picture of the creative process if it is taken too literally. The creative process is less linear than recursive. (Csikszentmihalyi 1996)

2.3 Social Theories of Learning

A broader path to knowledge encompasses all of the processes of learning.  For every flash of creative insight, there are hours and hours of understanding and absorbing knowledge that is common, or at least widely known within a field.  Part of the appeal of a university setting, like CGU, is the opportunity for interaction with others. 

Learning is the process of direct and indirect experience and observation, and intuitive knowledge is the collected, social-interacted and internalized result of learning. We learn in different ways. The most basic way of learning is observation, where we see or hear but where some of our senses are not engaged. For example, we gain our knowledge through reading books, newspapers, television, online, and observing behavior of our parents and peer. In their book “The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge”, Berger and Luckmann (1967) state that one’s knowledge of everyday life is structured in terms of relevance, it is socially distributed, and that is, as possessed differently by different individuals and types of individuals; thus the social distribution of knowledge of certain elements of everyday reality can become highly complex and even confusing to the outsiders (pp. 45-46). Therefore, a more advanced way of learning is social interaction, which engages the most knowledge sharing and collaboration in the learning experience. For example, students learn through interacting with people in school, at home, in public and online. They exchange information they know, and sometimes work on a task together.

Constructivist learning has emerged as a prominent approach in education in recent years yet the school of thoughts can be traced back to the work of Dewey, Montessori, Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky among others provide historical precedents for constructivist learning theory. Fosnot (1996) has provided a recent summary of these theories and describes constructivist teaching practice. Traditional behaviorist approach focuses on intelligence, domains of objectives, levels of knowledge, and reinforcement. Constructivist epistemology assumes that learners construct their own knowledge on the basis of interaction with their environment. Constructivist learning theories are characterized by the following four assumptions:

1. Knowledge is physically constructed by learners who are involved in active learning.

2. Knowledge is symbolically constructed by learners who are making their own representations of action;

3. Knowledge is socially constructed by learners who convey their meaning making to others;

4. Knowledge is theoretically constructed by learners who try to explain things they don't completely understand.

Wenger (1998), in his book “Communities of Practice”, perceives learning as a process of social participation. His proposed “Social Theory of Learning” integrates the following components necessary to characterize social participation as a process of learning and of knowing: Meaning (learning as experience); Practice (learning as doing); Community (learning as belonging); identity (learning as becoming) (Wenger, 1998, pp. 4). Wegner suggests that learning should be primarily a practice of identity formation and modes of belonging, and not just accumulating skills and information.

2.4 Technology and Knowledge

Technology is opening up new ways for scholars to connect and communicate.  These new linkages allow for knowledge creation to further escape the bounds of geography and time. At CGU, for example, there are a number of emerging Web 2.0 services that allow for rapid interspatial and stable intertemporal creativity. Examples include the weblog-based Drucker conversation for Drucker faculty, students and outside scholars, the SISATSpace project, which is a virtual Community of Practice (CoP) for students, alumni and faculty at the School of Information Systems and Technology, Sakai collaborative learning environment for all seven Claremont Colleges, and this Elgg-empowered Claremont Conversation site. The differences are the audiences, the context, the communication channels, and technologies used. The similaries are they all encourage community-based annotation, interaction, and collaboration, with the same goal of enriching the knowledge-building process and enhancing users' learning experiences.

While technological advances may embody the future of creativity at CGU, the past is equally important in understanding the way inquiry functions at this institution.  The following section examines this school’s unique history.