Paper: Wang and Nickerson (2017). A literature review on individual creativity support systems

Hodges' model can lay claim to being a creativity support system [CSS]. While I do not have evidence, the model presents a diversity of stimuli in its structure and the care - knowledge - domains. It follows then that from the outset it is a motivational primer on both affective and achievement counts. Immediately, there is the motivation provided by the blank space, viewed as one or four conceptual spaces to find an initial starting concept. Affective as users gravitate towards their chosen reflective and creative journey, and achievement priming as having a goal that is prompted by professional, interpersonal and educational goals. If there is a case of 'creativity block' then perhaps a group approach can be adopted? Hodges' model then becomes a collaborative creativity support system. With Hodges' model and no doubt the proposed CSSs the collaborative agents add their own affective and achievement priming, whether student-student; patient-student (supervised); or mentor-student.

With the important caveat that the studies identified do not include healthcare but many papers are general. The authors provoke many questions: "Creativity support systems, like other information systems, are most effective when they instantiate underlying theories..." (p.140). I have already posed this question - which is (as ever) compound. As per the review's general domain papers, is there an underlying theory for all of Hodges' model; or is there a need for a theory per care domain?

"The literature on individual creativity support systems has drawn from theories about design, human computer interaction, information systems, and creativity.. " (p.140). 

If 'design' can be complex, what of 'care design'? That is what we are about. This in turn impacts upon the other sources of theory above.

There is much to draw upon in Wang and Nickerson (2017) but finally on page 145:

"the authors did a survey to verify the notion that creative self-efficacy, individual knowledge and IT support affect individual creativity through mediating variables: individual absorptive capacity, exploration and exploitation." 

Creativity must contribute to literacy, Wang and Nickerson allude to a relationship, referring to self-efficacy above. This is what we are seeking in health literacy and self-care. An ability to explore and exploit available resources being a sign of autonomy and efficacy.

Table 3
A framework for designing individual creativity support systems.

Aspects	Components	Features to Support the Component
Motivation	Motivational priming	Affective priming Achievement priming
Creative Process	Process completeness Process control	Modules to support each step in a complete creative process Allowing iteration and selection of steps
Divergent thinking	Stimuli Long term memory Working memory Creativity techniques	Providing different levels of stimuli, Providing stimuli dynamically External long term memory, such as knowledge base and case library; Facilitating search Supporting association, Visualization, Random combination Facilitating the use of creativity techniques; Computational creativity techniques
Convergent thinking	Comprehension Decision	Labeling, classification, simulation Criteria based comparison, Decision support

Table 4
The steps in a complete creative process.

Process Stage	The Divergent Step	The Convergent Step
Problem finding	Formulating problem presentations in various ways	Selecting the best ways to present the problem
Information finding	Collecting potentially relevant information	Selecting the most relevant information
Idea finding	Generating many ideas	Selecting the best ideas
Solution finding	Improving the selected ideas	Selecting the improved ideas and integrating them into a solution

Reference:
Wang, K., & Nickerson, J. (2017). A literature review on individual creativity support systems. Computers In Human Behavior, 74, 139-151. (tables p.145).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.035