Post your reactions to the "Creativity" interviews presented in class. Click on "comments" below.
Posted by TNDY 4010 Inductive Inquiry / IS366a Qualitative Methods - Ben Schooley
Comments
Jeanne NakamuraJeanne Nakamura worked on Creativity and Flow with Csikszentmihalyi.She said that they were talking to people over the age of 60.The interviews followed the same format.The researchers identified the different parts of the discovery process.(Preparation, incubation, insight, evaluation, and elaboration)She was expecting that people would talk about being creative and older.She said that the people she talked to were not in the mind set of being a creative older person.When they interviewed Nobel Prize winners about their accomplishments the answers they got were automatic.They answered the questions the same way they answered questions for 20 years or more.The interviewees really came alive, however, when they spoke about some new discovery or some new project that they were working on.To illustrate her point, Nakamura showed two videos.One was a man who spoke about his accomplishment decades ago.Then there was a lady who started talking about a discovery she made very recently.Her eyes lit up and the information she gave was not rehearsed.It was like she had never spoken to anyone outside the scientific community about her newest accomplishment.The next video clip she showed was a sculpture.The thing that stood out the most was when she spoke about the solitude of her work.“It is lonely work.You have to like being lonely.”(Most people altered between being with people and the solitude. Some people would disappear or leave other people to get fully immersed in their work.)There is concern in some of the interviews about contemporary childhood because kids aren’t learning how to be alone.
Michelle Millet on Wednesday, 22 November 2006, 18:54 Pacific Standard Time # |
Jeanne Nakamura showed us couple interview clips of Nobel prize winners: a physicist and an astronomer. I like the presentation because she integrates the video clip into slides context, in which the slide will show the stage of creative processes such as hard work, incubation, insight and elaboration as the interviewees were telling their story. The incubation stage is very important as it prepares the researchers with proficient knowledge and practical background to reach the insight moment. The incubation is often descibed as "lonely" process although the researchers actually study significant amount of related prvious studies and work in additional to studying the research objects (e.g., calculations, galacies), therefore we can say that the incubation is also a stage where knowledge sharing and exchanging occurs, sometimes via literatures and documents, somtimes researchers meet, discuss, make decisions, and collaborate working on difficult problems together. I also agree with Jeanne that the level of social interaction in research creativities depends on the domain. Specifically social science research may require more social interaction compared to natual science research.
Xuesong Zhang on Wednesday, 22 November 2006, 19:39 Pacific Standard Time # |
It was interesting to see the video clippings that were the basis of our readings in the Creativity text. It is interesting to see how people that are considered creative view their own creativity. The astronomer spoke of things she noticed in her data gathering that were “interesting” and these “interesting” things about the celestial body she was studying is what led to her newest research epiphany. As outsiders viewing the creative process of another, we use different terminology for the aspects of another’s creativity than the terminology of those whom we are studying. This astronomer’s “interesting” collection of information that drew her attention may be viewed as inductive information that her subconscious identified as “interesting,” but her conscious mind did not have enough information to help her figure what was so interesting about this particular data. This story reminds me of the study from Blink where the research participants who were given a set of cards one by one could spot the pattern unconsciously before their conscious mind could identify what exactly was wrong.
Nicole Garcia on Wednesday, 22 November 2006, 20:07 Pacific Standard Time # |
Reaction to Ms. Nakamura's presentation:
The videos taken as part of the Creativity research were extremely interesting.I was intrigued by the interview with Freeman Dyson and how he had an “ah ha” moment while taking a bus across Kansas.I would never have thought about his narrative as being a well worn story, but I am sure it probably was.I believe that while much value was clearly extracted from the interviews, seeing the video themselves was a rare treat.
What also struck me was that many of the individuals were unique and brilliant, but that did not seems to be their main attribute.Rather their attitude of wonder, interest, and vision seemed to be far more important.I wonder how many of the people that participated in the study would have considered themselves to be a future candidate (for the study) in the younger years and what does that mean for us.
Kevin Williams on Monday, 27 November 2006, 21:59 Pacific Standard Time # |
Jeanne talked about the original goal of the project, which was to interview innovation in people over then 60. It goes back to the flexibility of qualitative research. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s research team went into the project looking to study creativity in a specific population. However, what emerged were individuals discussing their creativity when they were younger. And thus, what emerged from the research were similarities in the creative process and thus the book Creativity and not Creativity After 60.
It was also interesting to see how the video was transcribed into text. Although the video interviews sounded a bit redundant, it was a beneficial lesson for those of us interested in qualitative research to see how the interviews were transcribed in the book. It would be interesting to compare this approach with Tracy Kidder’s notes while he worked with Data General.
I also thought it was interesting that in the videos there was no focus on the interviewer. In fact, I’m not even sure if there was an interviewer, maybe only a camera person, which brings me to my next point. Although I think it may infringe on copyrights, I think it would be quite interesting if Creativity had an online component where the viewer can read about the interviews, watch the videos and comment and provide feedback for the public and/or the researchers (similar to how Allan Wicker disseminated his narratives about the Ghanaian workers). Although we live in a time of information overload, I think public dissemination of this research would produce a larger response adding to both Dr. Csikszentmihalyi’s research and the impact it has on the community of learners.
However, as the smaller community of learners, we are fortunate to have Jeanne so close in proximity where we can schedule a meeting and look up one of the researchers we found most interesting.
Okay, so I did not see this blog post until today, when I say Kevin William’s comment, so apologies for the delay.
brian thoms on Tuesday, 28 November 2006, 12:22 Pacific Standard Time # |
Post your reactions to the "Creativity" interviews presented in class.
Ms. Nakamura’s presentation did evoke our curiosity how they conducted interviews in the past. She mentioned about the issues with respect to conducting interviews, collecting samples, and so on. From the short interviewing movies displayed by Ms. Nakamura, we are able to learn the working as well as learning attitude from these creative people. Most interviewees accentuate the importance of hard working together with relentless efforts. It is crystal clear to us that creativity does not appear in one day, but comes from the accumulation of useful knowledge that typically goes through several process, namely, preparation, incubation, insight, and evaluation. Preparation needs to have hard working. Incubation is like being on a vacation without doing anything. I wish I am able to halt in the process of incubation longer. Insight refers to a hunch or inspiration suddenly appearing. Evaluation is a way to assess a theory is useful or not. She also drew a simple picture to account for the interaction between field and person.
Justin Ku on Tuesday, 28 November 2006, 19:52 Pacific Standard Time # |
Jeanne Nakamura showed us a couple of interview clips, and Jeanne mentioned “original goal of the project”, which was to interview innovation in people over then 60. The project explored sustained engagement in creative work. I found the research method for this project from the Internet, which is Data were 40 interviews with eminent scientists and artists still active in later life (mean age 72) and re-interviews conducted 10 years later with four subjects as a pilot longitudinal study. Less than half of the 40 subjects' narratives fit the canonical pattern. In the creative thoughts, a guiding purpose originating before adulthood animates and unifies endeavors throughout life. However, what emerged were individuals discussing their creativity when they were younger. I also reminded the flexibility of qualitative research. Prof. Csikszentmihalyi researched creativity in a specific people group. The research showed us similarities in the creative process and thus the book Creativity and not Creativity after 60.
Yoon Min Kim on Tuesday, 28 November 2006, 22:58 Pacific Standard Time # |
Reaction to Ms. Nakamura's Presentation: Ms. Nakamura presented a selection of interview clips that were conducted as a part of the scholarly creativity discovery. I found the interviews of Freeman Dyson, Vera Rubin, and Nina Holton to be very informative and enlightening. First, Dr. Freeman Dyson’s “aha” moment was worth noting. It was very interesting to hear such things from Dr. Dyson himself “the horse’s mouth.” Second, Dr. Vera Rubin’s interest in astronomy was also interesting. She stayed with her focus until she got somewhere with it that is despite many years of not knowing what was taking place. Third, Dr. Nina Holton’s love for sculpting was evident. She did not mind the long hours of loneliness as she worked on her sculptures by herself. It was interesting to note that her work was basically 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration.
Nimer Alrushiedat on Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 09:02 Pacific Standard Time # |
The creativity interviews Jeanne Nakamura showed us were very interesting.They demonstrated some of the advantages and disadvantages of the interview process.The primary advantage is the attitude of the interviewees themselves.They are all intelligent individuals who have given a good deal of thought to their own work processes.Even when conversing, they seemed to have intense passion around their work.Sometimes interviewing can be like “pulling teeth,” as interviewees have a difficult time doing any more than answering specific directive questions.In these cases, the subjects could really carry the interviews.They answered questions in a broad manner, allowing the listener to see perspectives he or she would not even have known to ask about.Additionally, their passion for their work caused them to offer up their own observations and assessments, which added substantial depth to the information they provided.
The most significant challenge I noted was the breadth of the definition of creativity.It seemed in the sampling of interviews we saw that the creativity described was in the manner of “study very hard and learn something.”The real achievement seemed better described as discovery, rather than creativity.Being the first to discover something certainly demands respect.However, the achievements of finding something that already existed, no matter how difficult, would seem to be quite different from the achievement of producing something that never existed before.If creativity is used to describe both, it becomes a rather less precise term.
Leo Paulo on Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 09:38 Pacific Standard Time # |
Reaction to Ms. Nakamura's presentation
Ms. Nakamura introduced some interviews with several famous people, including Freeman Dyson, Nobel prize winner, Vera Rubin, leading female astronomer, Nina Holton, distinguished sculptor, and so on. They all talked about how they achieved their tremendous performance through the creative process. Dyson explained five phases of his creation: preparation, incubation, insight, evaluation, and elaboration. I thought those five steps are all important to researchers, but especially insight stage seems to be more interesting to me. While I am seeking a solution for a complex problem, I experienced the same moment that the whole problem structure becomes clear. Even though not every solution that came from the insight worked well, the sudden insight was very helpful for finding final solution. On the other hand, Vera Rubin’s interview was interesting too. She explained how personal experiences are selected by a field of experts by producing novelty. The relationship between the field and the individual who aspires to add creativity to the domain was quite interesting. This relationship is well reflected in the following comment of Csikszentmihalyi, “Creativity does not happen inside people’s heads, but in the interaction between a person’s thoughts and a socio-cultural context. It is a systemic rather than an individual phenomenon.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 23)
Myungjae Kwak on Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 15:35 Pacific Standard Time # |
Ms.Jeanne Nakamura’s video clipping was very interesting. It showed all detail work for interviews on Creativity by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. She explained how they made over one hundred interviews with creative people (over the age of 60) in every field and thirty years of research on the subject. She showed interviews such as the Nobel Prize winner physicist, astronomer and sculptor. All interviewees were talking about their unique experiences, the problems during processing, and how they developed their own creativity. All their works were coming to a sudden insight into the nature of a problem by following Mihaly’s five creative processes: preparation, incubation, insight, evaluation and elaboration. She showed how to translate different languages on the video, and explained all the problems they had during the interviews. Astronomer Vera Rubin’s astronomical discovery was remarkable. It was impossible to imagine it without access to the large amount of information about celestial motions that had been collected for centuries. All creative people involved 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration as per Mihaly’s elaboration creative process. She showed how Mihaly’s project was created by their great organized teamwork and their creativity plan in the difficult situation and environment.
I really liked the presentation by Ms. Nakamura. First, she had a really interesting demeanor about her. She seemed mild mannered and humble about her research. For some reason this struck me as unique about her style. I can see how this translates very well to her ability to make people feel at ease and candid in the interviews with her. The interviews she showed us were interesting. I remember one of a astronmer and another of a physicist- noble prize winners. I thought this was fascinating considering I have never seen footage or interviews with noble prize winners. I really like the location of the interviews in the participants own place of comfort- some were in their cluttered offices while another was in a living room. I thought this was a good technique to capture their personal environments. During the interviews, I noticed how little Nakamura spoke. She prompted her participant but did not elaborate. I thought this technique was key because it allowed the participant to take the lead and talk as freely as posssible.
Kristina Alvarado on Monday, 11 December 2006, 12:19 Pacific Standard Time # |
The videos of creative people talking about their work were very interesting. They all brought to focus to what extent creativity involves a lot of hard work and persistence. It is not solely about the “aha” moments but also about the ability to follow it through and bring a project fully to light. I was also interested in the interviews as a tool of qualitative research that allows you to obtain first-hand information. It is very important for the interviewer to formulate the question in an explicit but non-limiting manner that conveys the topic of discussion with clarity and at the same time that allows the interviewed person enough flexibility to fully express themselves. Ms. Nakamura has given us an interesting and inspiring presentation.
Nawar Abdelrahman on Monday, 11 December 2006, 23:39 Pacific Standard Time # |
Jeanne Nakamura Reaction
I really enjoyed Ms. Nakamura’s speech.She had some interesting stories and further explanations about how the research was conducted, as well as some additional tidbits about where they were looking to research as a next step.Some of the more interesting thoughts came about as a result of sheer serendipity, something good to know for our own research.
Personally, I thought that actually seeing the videos was the best part.After having read the stories in the actual book, seeing the people talk was really riveting.While the quality wasn’t great, it was good enough to understand.It really made the stories come alive as I was able to better understand the personalities of the interviewees.Ms. Nakamura’s anecdotes’ and explanations also really helped for the class to get a picture of these creative individuals.
Nathan Garrett on Tuesday, 12 December 2006, 21:08 Pacific Standard Time # |
Being stuck in traffic is frustrating even at the best of times. That it caused me to miss the first few minutes of this lecture added insult to injury, because I found the portion of the first video that I saw absolutely fascinating. Although much of it was simply the same hopes and fears all of us share, I found it particularly interesting coming from an astronomer discussing how she came to make a discovery and the concerns she had before she was actually able to publish. I found that portion of Ms. Nakamura's presentation quite effective, in that it stood well on its own even without any interpretation.
Fred Clarke on Wednesday, 13 December 2006, 09:10 Pacific Standard Time # |
One aspect I enjoyed of Professor Nakamura’s presentation was the video clips of people interviewed for Csikszentmihalyi’s “Creativity and Flow.” This book was actually the one of the first books I read in undergrad, for a book review I had to turn in for a Psychology elective I took my first quarter, so finally seeing the actual interviews that formed the foundation of the book’s content put me in a bit of a time warp… Actually, I never finished reading the book and I did the entire report on just the first three chapters (of course, I made sure not to let the professor know this), so I had to read the rest of the book for this class. Anyhow, one aspect of the presentation that caught my attention was the creative process that many of the interviewees had. The steps in the process are: “Preparation: I spent six months working very hard to understand. I would sit down for days … with large stacks of papers doing calculations. “Incubation: Then I went off on vacation, spent a couple of weeks bumming around, where I wasn’t doing any work. “Insight: Suddenly in the middle of the night the whole thing became crystal clear. “Evaluation: The result was a theory that was actually useful “Elaboration: Then I had to spend another six months afterwards working out the details and writing it up.” I am sure that most students are already familiar with this process, just not in this form. I am familiar with a variation of this process: Preparation consists of a weekend spent just downloading all articles I can find on ACM or IEEE even remotely related to the topic my assignment is on and reading only the Abstract, most of the Introduction, and the first sentence of every paragraph in the Literature Review. Incubation is where I spend a week staring at a blank page in Microsoft Word on my laptop screen as I try to figure out what the heck I want to write about. My insight is usually artificially induced whenever I come within 24 hours of my deadline. Evaluation: Who has the time? I have less than a day to finish this paper! Elaboration is where I spend the next few hours rushing to produce something coherent out of information I gathered in the preparation phase. All sarcasm aside, I really do relate to the creative process she highlighted. Incubation and insight really are frustrating steps for me. I wasn’t kidding when I said my incubation phase mainly involved staring at the blinking prompt for hours on end. It’s often the case where it’s not until I get too bored or too frustrated with the current assignment and decide to switch to another assignment or subject that I finally get an idea or overcome my writer’s block. It really is an “ah-ha!” moment, where just seconds prior I was still feeling utter despair, while the next second the assignment and my idea for it suddenly becomes crystal clear.
On a completely unrelated note: Professor Nakamura earns some points for having the same family name as an Iron Chef.
firpod on Wednesday, 13 December 2006, 13:35 Pacific Standard Time # |
Conducting interviews was clearly a great experience for Jeanne Nakamura.Based on the segments we saw, the interviewees were very happy to be interviewed, and were very forthcoming.The job ofthe interviewer is much easier if the subject can anticipate the interest of the interviewer and can answer questions before they are asked.These subjects clearly were able to offer insights that the interviewers would not have known to ask about.An interesting facet of some of the responses was the amount of minor detail remembered and related.It appears that the events they discussed were such signal events that they remember them with great clarity.Also interesting was their arrival at new knowledge.It seemed to me less like creativity than discovery.A fact is there all the time, but no one knows of it yet.By dint of hard work and sweat, this particular researched finally reaches a point where the light goes on, and understanding follows.Czikszentmihalyi discusses the cyclical flow of reasoning as a five step process.He speaks of the first step, preparation, as being the most time consuming.That seems to fit the experience of the researchers we saw inter viewed.
Leo Paulo on Friday, 15 December 2006, 10:45 Pacific Standard Time # |
| View blog | Archive | Friends' blogs | View all posts
Comments
Jeanne Nakamura showed us couple interview clips of Nobel prize winners: a physicist and an astronomer. I like the presentation because she integrates the video clip into slides context, in which the slide will show the stage of creative processes such as hard work, incubation, insight and elaboration as the interviewees were telling their story. The incubation stage is very important as it prepares the researchers with proficient knowledge and practical background to reach the insight moment. The incubation is often descibed as "lonely" process although the researchers actually study significant amount of related prvious studies and work in additional to studying the research objects (e.g., calculations, galacies), therefore we can say that the incubation is also a stage where knowledge sharing and exchanging occurs, sometimes via literatures and documents, somtimes researchers meet, discuss, make decisions, and collaborate working on difficult problems together. I also agree with Jeanne that the level of social interaction in research creativities depends on the domain. Specifically social science research may require more social interaction compared to natual science research.
It was interesting to see the video clippings that were the basis of our readings in the Creativity text. It is interesting to see how people that are considered creative view their own creativity. The astronomer spoke of things she noticed in her data gathering that were “interesting” and these “interesting” things about the celestial body she was studying is what led to her newest research epiphany. As outsiders viewing the creative process of another, we use different terminology for the aspects of another’s creativity than the terminology of those whom we are studying. This astronomer’s “interesting” collection of information that drew her attention may be viewed as inductive information that her subconscious identified as “interesting,” but her conscious mind did not have enough information to help her figure what was so interesting about this particular data. This story reminds me of the study from Blink where the research participants who were given a set of cards one by one could spot the pattern unconsciously before their conscious mind could identify what exactly was wrong.
Reaction to Ms. Nakamura's presentation:
The videos taken as part of the Creativity research were extremely interesting. I was intrigued by the interview with Freeman Dyson and how he had an “ah ha” moment while taking a bus across Kansas. I would never have thought about his narrative as being a well worn story, but I am sure it probably was. I believe that while much value was clearly extracted from the interviews, seeing the video themselves was a rare treat.
What also struck me was that many of the individuals were unique and brilliant, but that did not seems to be their main attribute. Rather their attitude of wonder, interest, and vision seemed to be far more important. I wonder how many of the people that participated in the study would have considered themselves to be a future candidate (for the study) in the younger years and what does that mean for us.
Jeanne talked about the original goal of the project, which was to interview innovation in people over then 60. It goes back to the flexibility of qualitative research. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s research team went into the project looking to study creativity in a specific population. However, what emerged were individuals discussing their creativity when they were younger. And thus, what emerged from the research were similarities in the creative process and thus the book Creativity and not Creativity After 60.
It was also interesting to see how the video was transcribed into text. Although the video interviews sounded a bit redundant, it was a beneficial lesson for those of us interested in qualitative research to see how the interviews were transcribed in the book. It would be interesting to compare this approach with Tracy Kidder’s notes while he worked with Data General.
I also thought it was interesting that in the videos there was no focus on the interviewer. In fact, I’m not even sure if there was an interviewer, maybe only a camera person, which brings me to my next point. Although I think it may infringe on copyrights, I think it would be quite interesting if Creativity had an online component where the viewer can read about the interviews, watch the videos and comment and provide feedback for the public and/or the researchers (similar to how Allan Wicker disseminated his narratives about the Ghanaian workers). Although we live in a time of information overload, I think public dissemination of this research would produce a larger response adding to both Dr. Csikszentmihalyi’s research and the impact it has on the community of learners.
However, as the smaller community of learners, we are fortunate to have Jeanne so close in proximity where we can schedule a meeting and look up one of the researchers we found most interesting.
Okay, so I did not see this blog post until today, when I say Kevin William’s comment, so apologies for the delay.
Post your reactions to the "Creativity" interviews presented in class.
Ms. Nakamura’s presentation did evoke our curiosity how they conducted interviews in the past. She mentioned about the issues with respect to conducting interviews, collecting samples, and so on. From the short interviewing movies displayed by Ms. Nakamura, we are able to learn the working as well as learning attitude from these creative people. Most interviewees accentuate the importance of hard working together with relentless efforts. It is crystal clear to us that creativity does not appear in one day, but comes from the accumulation of useful knowledge that typically goes through several process, namely, preparation, incubation, insight, and evaluation. Preparation needs to have hard working. Incubation is like being on a vacation without doing anything. I wish I am able to halt in the process of incubation longer. Insight refers to a hunch or inspiration suddenly appearing. Evaluation is a way to assess a theory is useful or not. She also drew a simple picture to account for the interaction between field and person.The creativity interviews Jeanne Nakamura showed us were very interesting. They demonstrated some of the advantages and disadvantages of the interview process. The primary advantage is the attitude of the interviewees themselves. They are all intelligent individuals who have given a good deal of thought to their own work processes. Even when conversing, they seemed to have intense passion around their work. Sometimes interviewing can be like “pulling teeth,” as interviewees have a difficult time doing any more than answering specific directive questions. In these cases, the subjects could really carry the interviews. They answered questions in a broad manner, allowing the listener to see perspectives he or she would not even have known to ask about. Additionally, their passion for their work caused them to offer up their own observations and assessments, which added substantial depth to the information they provided.
The most significant challenge I noted was the breadth of the definition of creativity. It seemed in the sampling of interviews we saw that the creativity described was in the manner of “study very hard and learn something.” The real achievement seemed better described as discovery, rather than creativity. Being the first to discover something certainly demands respect. However, the achievements of finding something that already existed, no matter how difficult, would seem to be quite different from the achievement of producing something that never existed before. If creativity is used to describe both, it becomes a rather less precise term.
Reaction to Ms. Nakamura's presentation
Ms. Nakamura introduced some interviews with several famous people, including Freeman Dyson, Nobel prize winner, Vera Rubin, leading female astronomer, Nina Holton, distinguished sculptor, and so on. They all talked about how they achieved their tremendous performance through the creative process. Dyson explained five phases of his creation: preparation, incubation, insight, evaluation, and elaboration. I thought those five steps are all important to researchers, but especially insight stage seems to be more interesting to me. While I am seeking a solution for a complex problem, I experienced the same moment that the whole problem structure becomes clear. Even though not every solution that came from the insight worked well, the sudden insight was very helpful for finding final solution. On the other hand, Vera Rubin’s interview was interesting too. She explained how personal experiences are selected by a field of experts by producing novelty. The relationship between the field and the individual who aspires to add creativity to the domain was quite interesting. This relationship is well reflected in the following comment of Csikszentmihalyi, “Creativity does not happen inside people’s heads, but in the interaction between a person’s thoughts and a socio-cultural context. It is a systemic rather than an individual phenomenon.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 23)
I really liked the presentation by Ms. Nakamura. First, she had a really interesting demeanor about her. She seemed mild mannered and humble about her research. For some reason this struck me as unique about her style. I can see how this translates very well to her ability to make people feel at ease and candid in the interviews with her. The interviews she showed us were interesting. I remember one of a astronmer and another of a physicist- noble prize winners. I thought this was fascinating considering I have never seen footage or interviews with noble prize winners. I really like the location of the interviews in the participants own place of comfort- some were in their cluttered offices while another was in a living room. I thought this was a good technique to capture their personal environments. During the interviews, I noticed how little Nakamura spoke. She prompted her participant but did not elaborate. I thought this technique was key because it allowed the participant to take the lead and talk as freely as posssible.
The videos of creative people talking about their work were very interesting. They all brought to focus to what extent creativity involves a lot of hard work and persistence. It is not solely about the “aha” moments but also about the ability to follow it through and bring a project fully to light. I was also interested in the interviews as a tool of qualitative research that allows you to obtain first-hand information. It is very important for the interviewer to formulate the question in an explicit but non-limiting manner that conveys the topic of discussion with clarity and at the same time that allows the interviewed person enough flexibility to fully express themselves. Ms. Nakamura has given us an interesting and inspiring presentation.
Jeanne Nakamura Reaction
I really enjoyed Ms. Nakamura’s speech. She had some interesting stories and further explanations about how the research was conducted, as well as some additional tidbits about where they were looking to research as a next step. Some of the more interesting thoughts came about as a result of sheer serendipity, something good to know for our own research.
Personally, I thought that actually seeing the videos was the best part. After having read the stories in the actual book, seeing the people talk was really riveting. While the quality wasn’t great, it was good enough to understand. It really made the stories come alive as I was able to better understand the personalities of the interviewees. Ms. Nakamura’s anecdotes’ and explanations also really helped for the class to get a picture of these creative individuals.
“Preparation: I spent six months working very hard to understand. I would sit down for days … with large stacks of papers doing calculations.
“Incubation: Then I went off on vacation, spent a couple of weeks bumming around, where I wasn’t doing any work.
“Insight: Suddenly in the middle of the night the whole thing became crystal clear.
“Evaluation: The result was a theory that was actually useful
“Elaboration: Then I had to spend another six months afterwards working out the details and writing it up.”
I am sure that most students are already familiar with this process, just not in this form. I am familiar with a variation of this process: Preparation consists of a weekend spent just downloading all articles I can find on ACM or IEEE even remotely related to the topic my assignment is on and reading only the Abstract, most of the Introduction, and the first sentence of every paragraph in the Literature Review. Incubation is where I spend a week staring at a blank page in Microsoft Word on my laptop screen as I try to figure out what the heck I want to write about. My insight is usually artificially induced whenever I come within 24 hours of my deadline. Evaluation: Who has the time? I have less than a day to finish this paper! Elaboration is where I spend the next few hours rushing to produce something coherent out of information I gathered in the preparation phase.
All sarcasm aside, I really do relate to the creative process she highlighted. Incubation and insight really are frustrating steps for me. I wasn’t kidding when I said my incubation phase mainly involved staring at the blinking prompt for hours on end. It’s often the case where it’s not until I get too bored or too frustrated with the current assignment and decide to switch to another assignment or subject that I finally get an idea or overcome my writer’s block. It really is an “ah-ha!” moment, where just seconds prior I was still feeling utter despair, while the next second the assignment and my idea for it suddenly becomes crystal clear.
On a completely unrelated note: Professor Nakamura earns some points for having the same family name as an Iron Chef.