Shaping Strömsö: Examining Elements in a Creative Process for the Design of New Television Content

Aubra C. Shepard 1 , Elisabeth Morney 2 ,  and Sarah E. Sumners 3
  • 1 University of Georgia,
  • 2 Aalto University, , Finland
  • 3 University of Georgia,

Abstract

This paper explores elements in the creative process of the development of a new television format from both practice and research-based perspectives. We compare and integrate findings from an unpublished case study of the popular Finnish lifestyle television program, Strömsö, with the broad research literature on creativity. Through this lens, fourteen elements, which were identified through this case study to be present in the creation of Strömsö, are explored and contextualized with examples from the show’s creation. These elements were: 1) idea, 2) analyze, 3) brainstorm, 4) research, 5) benchmark, 6) toss ideas, 7) temporary input, 8) inspiration from an unexpected source, 9) rest, 10) formulate, 11) concretize, 12) pilot, 13) make mistakes, and 14) chaos. Research on multiple subtopics related to creativity is utilized to illustrate how knowledge gained through the academic literature can be integrated with these findings to provide possible guidance for practice. In doing so, we show how diverse epistemological and methodological approaches to examining the same phenomena can bolster insight and understanding for researchers and practitioners alike. Researchers will be able to note how topics that they are familiar with manifested in a practical setting, and non-academic professionals involved in creating content for television and new media will be introduced to theory and research that may aid in their creative endeavors. We intend this manuscript to provide useful information to such professionals and inspire additional research in the academic community.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aaltonen, J. (2018). Käsikirjoittajan työkalut. Audiovisuaalisen käsikirjoituksen tekijän opas. [Tools for the Screen Writer. A guide for the practitioner of audiovisual screen-writing]. Tampere: SKS.

  • Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). The artistic personality: A systems perspective. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 31-42). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10692-003

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184. doi:10.2307/256995

  • Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. Y., Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Inspired by distraction: Mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1117-1122. doi:10.1177/0956797612446024

  • Barron, F. (1963). The need for order and disorder as motives in creativity. In C.W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 153-160). New York: Wiley.

  • Basadur, M. (1995). Optimal ideation-evaluation ratios. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 63-75. doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0801_5

  • Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creative mortification: An initial exploration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 266-276.

  • Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). Revisiting Mednick’s model on creativity-related differences in associative hierarchies. Evidence for a common path to uncommon thought. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(4), 273-289.

  • Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Glaveanu, V., Botella, M., Guillou, K., De Biasi, P. M., & Lubart, T. (2014). The creativity maze: Exploring creativity in screenplay writing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(4), 384-399. doi:10.1037/a0037839

  • Cai, D. J., Mednick, S. A., Harrison, E. M., Kanady, J. C., & Mednick, S. C. (2009). REM, not incubation, improves creativity by priming associative networks. PNAS Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America, 106(25), 10130-10134. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900271106

  • Cameron, R. (2011). Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 96-108.

  • Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent Creativity: A Functional Model of Creativity in Terrorism and Crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105-115. doi.org/10.1080/10400410802059424

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(1), 47-52. doi:10.1037/h0031106

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity and its applications. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 533-545). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118367377.ch25

  • Dane, E. (2010). Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 579-603.

  • Davey, N. (2006). Unquiet understanding: Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

  • Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 443-475.

  • Gilson, L. L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 21-28. doi:10.1037/a0017863

  • Goodell, G. (1998). Independent feature film production. A complete guide from concept through distribution. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.

  • Grosser, T. J., Venkataramani, V., & Labianca, G. (2017). An alter-centric perspective on employee innovation: The importance of alters’ creative self-efficacy and network structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(9), 1360-1374. doi:10.1037/apl0000220

  • Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267-293. doi:10.1037/h0040755

  • Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 224.

  • Henderson, K. A. & Bedini, L. A. (1995) Notes on linking qualitative and quantitative data. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 29(2), 124-130.

  • Hocevar, D. (1979a). A comparison of statistical infrequency and subjective judgment as criteria in the measurement of originality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43(3), 297-299. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4303_13

  • Hocevar, D. (1979b). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 191-196. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.191

  • Huber, J. C. (1998). Invention and inventivity is a random, Poisson process: A potential guide to analysis of general creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(3), 231-241.

  • Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90. doi:10.1080/10400410709336883

  • Jay, E. & Perkins, D. (1997) Creativity’s compass: A review of problem finding. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook, Vol. 1, (257-293). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

  • Kessel, M., Kratzer, J., & Schultz, C. (2012). Psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and creative performance in healthcare teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 147-157. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00635.x

  • Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622-629.

  • Kornilova, T. V., & Kornilov, S. A. (2010). Intelligence and tolerance/intolerance for uncertainty as predictors of creativity. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 3, 240-256. doi:10.11621/pir.2010.0012

  • Levine, K. J., Heuett, K. B., & Reno, K. M. (2015). Re-operationalizing established groups in brainstorming: Validating Osborn’s claims. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51 (3), 252-262. doi:10.1002/jocb.122

  • Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757-767. doi:10.2307/3069309

  • Mäkelä, M. & Routarinne, S. (2006). An introduction to the art of research. In M. Mäkelä & S. Routarinne (Eds.) The art of research. Research practices in art and design. (p.22) Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

  • Martindale, C. (1990). Innovation, illegitimacy, and individualism. Creativity Research Journal, 3(2), 118-124. doi:10.1080/10400419009534343

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

  • McMahon, K., Ruggeri, A., Kämmer, J. E., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2016). Beyond idea generation: The power of groups in developing ideas. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 247-257.

  • Mednick, S.A. (1962) The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69, 220–232.

  • Morney, E. (2007). Pitchrundan våren 2007 - ett nytt element i beställningsprocessen på Svenska Yle [Pitching spring 2007 - a new element in the process of ordering new television programs at Yle, Swedish section] (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Industrial Arts, Helsinki.

  • Morney, E. (2011). Strömsö – Så skapades programkonceptet [Strömsö – This is how the concept was made]. Helsinki: Svenska Yle. Internally published report.

  • Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27-43

  • Ness, I. J. & Søreide, G. E. (2014). The Room of Opportunity: Understanding phases of creative knowledge processes in innovation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(8), 545-560. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-10-2013-0077

  • Oleynick, V. C., Thrash, T. M., LeFew, M. C., Moldovan, E. G., & Kieffaber, P. D. (2014). The scientific study of inspiration in the creative process: Challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00436/full

  • O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S.P. (2011). Creative products. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 273-281). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Osborne, A.F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner’s.

  • Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity, Phi Beta Kappen, 42, 305-310.

  • Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1988). Setting the stage for discovery. The Sciences, 28(3), 26-34.

  • Runco, M. A. (1994a). Conclusions concerning problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 271-291). Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing.

  • Runco, M. A. (1994b). Creativity and its discontents. In M. P. Shaw & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp. 102-123). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

  • Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Education, 47, 317-324.

  • Runco, M. A. (2007). A hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. New Horizons in Education, 55(3), 1-9.

  • Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press.

  • Runco, M. A., & Cayirdag, N. (2012). The theory of personal creativity and implications for the fulfillment of children’s potentials. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on research in creativity in early childhood education (pp. 31-43). Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age Publishing.

  • Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 243-267.doi:10.1007/BF02213373

  • Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537-546. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90337-3

  • Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

  • Runco, M.A., & Kim, D. (2011). The four P’s of creativity: Person, product, process, and press. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 534-537). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81. doi:10.1037/a0013282

  • Simonton, D. K. (1976). Philosophical eminence, beliefs, and zeitgeist: An individual-generational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 630-640. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.4.630

  • Simonton, D. K. (1979). Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9), 1603-1616. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.9.1603

  • Simonton, D. K. (1980). Thematic fame, melodic originality, and musical zeitgeist: A biographical and transhistorical content analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 972-983. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.972

  • Simonton, D. K. (1990). History, chemistry, psychology, and genius: An intellectual autobiography of historiometry. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of Creativity (pp. 92-115). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  • Simonton, D. K. (1998). Creativity, genius, and talent development. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 21(1), 86-87.

  • Simonton, D. K. (2004). Exceptional creativity and chance: Creative thought as a stochastic combinatorial process. In L. V. Shavinina & M. Ferrari, (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 39-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Simonton, D. K. (2013). Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention: Why creativity is inversely related to sightedness. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33(4), 253-266. doi:10.1037/a0030705

  • Simonton, D. K. (2015). Thomas Edison’s creative career: The multilayered trajectory of trials, errors, failures, and triumphs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 2.

  • Sio, U. N., & Ormerod, T. C. (2009). Does incubation enhance problem solving? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 94-120. doi:10.1037/a0014212

  • Sullivan, G. (2010). Art practice as research: Inquiry in visual arts (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

  • Thompson, P., Parker, R., & Cox, S. (2016). Interrogating creative theory and creative work: Inside the games studio. Sociology, 50(2), 316-332

  • Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.

  • Tobi, H., & Kampen, J. K. (2018). Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework. Quality & Quantity, 52(3), 1209-1225. doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0513-8

  • Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori & creativity. Buffalo, N.Y.: Creative Education Foundation.

  • Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.

  • Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. J. Cape: London.

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321. doi:10.2307/258761

  • Zhang, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2011). Revisiting the investment theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 229-238.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search