Call for Papers

Since Amabile's early work (1983) researchers have explored the major role of context on creativity at varied levels of analysis: the individual, the team, the organization, and the institutional. There is currently a growing body of research around the impact of the sociomaterial context on creativity: space design (Cartel et al., 2019), objects (Chen et al., 2020) and methods (Rampa & Parmentier, 2023) have been found to influence creative processes. Importantly, these material structures only influence the creative process in their interaction with human beings. Facilitation (Wróbel et al., 2021) and games (Agogué et al., 2015, 2015) are two examples of how human and objects interact in the creative process, forming the sociomaterial structure of creativity.
 
Put another way, there is a close relationship between human beings and material tools in the creativity process. The richness and diversity of material and method features engage and activate our senses and our emotions, which can lead to new ideas and insights. The growing scholarly interest for the sociomateriality of creativity is particularly salient in the context of the rise of digital technologies such as AI, which have been found to affects affect creativity at the individual level.
 
How and why sociomateriality influence creativity at the individual, organizational, and institutional levels, remains to be more fully considered. A better understanding of the entanglement between social and material aspects of organizing can help us address this question in several ways. Orliskowski has proposed a sociomaterial approach to practices to understand contemporary forms of organization, which are increasingly constituted of multiple, changing and interdependent technologies and materialities (Orlikowski, 2007). The concept of sociomateriality challenges traditional views of creativity research by emphasizing the importance of social and material factors in the creative process (Tanggaard, 2013). Investigating the sociomateriality of creativity implies an awareness of how different environments not only shape creativity but are in turn shaped by it. In this view, the material and the social are perceived as melded. Creative practices are mediated by material artifacts, and the materiality, as shaped by actors, is perceived as an outcome of the social context (Blomberg & Kallio, 2022).
 
As the community of scholars interested in the sociomateriality is growing, now is a good time to take stock of what has been achieved so far, clarify findings, concepts, ontologies, and set up the agenda to move forward. In terms of findings, research on the sociomateriality has yielded inconsistent findings (Isaksen, 1998). The challenge lies in the difficulty of studying the facilitation effect, which is a significant factor in the creative efficacy of these approaches. In situations that involve spontaneous creativity, research has placed the focus primarily on creative climates (Ekvall, 1997), physical spaces (Furnari, 2014) and organizational devices like fablabs, co-working spaces, livinglLabs, and hackerspaces (Furnari, 2014). Other studies even suggest that materiality creates social stability, which impairs creativity (e.g. Jones et al., 2017). A recent literature review suggests that the relationship between space and creativity is a dynamic process that involves the mediation of creative practices by material artifacts. It also highlights that space is a social production resulting from the connection with these artifacts (Blomberg & Kallio, 2022).
 
The growing community also sees a proliferation of ontologies. Some studies leverage the affordances theory, originally introduced by James Gibson to elucidate how individuals perceive the behavioral possibilities inherent in an object or context (Gibson, 1977). Other studies embrace the principle of relational symmetry between the material and the social. Relational symmetry refers to the notion that materiality is the product of social action and, in turn, shapes social processes (Boxenbaum et al., 2018; de Vaujany & Vaast, 2014). Saying that materiality is the product of social action means that objects are socially constructed (Jones et al., 2017). They are materially carved out by people and collectively interpreted (Jones & Massa, 2013).Bas du formulaire
 
From research on the creative climate (Ekvall, 1997) and the design of spaces (De Paoli et al., 2019, Cartel et al., 2019), it appears that the playfulness dimension has a significant impact on creativity. Nevertheless, this aspect, which serves as a sociomaterial tool combining equipment use and group dynamics, has been extensively understudied in both organized and spontaneous creativity situations. Games immerse players in a magical realm where anything is possible within the boundaries set by players and spectators (Huizinga, 1938). As a result, games have the potential to promote creativity, innovation, and learning (Agogué et al., 2015). Gamification could therefore be an interesting way of making creativity sessions more playful and motivating for participants.
 
From an empirical perspective, a focus on the sociomateriality of creativity is particularly relevant and needed given the recent upsurge in digital technologies. Adopting a lens on the sociomateriality of creativity, we can better understand the environmental impact of our digital practices and work (Orlikowski, 2007). The recent arrival of generative artificial intelligence tools based on language models trained on very large quantities of data has major implications for work in business, research and teaching. Computer scientists have explored the concept of creative AI for years, developing computational models of it (Mikalef & Gupta, 2021). Yet, there is a dearth of research on the impact of AI on the creativity of its users and adopting organizations. Depending on the type of AI, the cognitive and emotional skills necessary to develop creativity could vary (Ameen et al., 2022) suggesting a potential interaction between AI type, skills, and creativity.
 
Papers submitted to this sub-theme may include, but are not restricted to, the following questions:

• What is the role of material tools such as notebooks, sketches, and outlines in creative work?

• How does the materiality of creative spaces influence individual and collective creative behaviors?

• What are the effects of different types of materially mediated facilitation in creative workshops?

• What are the micro-practices that shape individual and group creativity in everyday life?

• What are the effects of gamification in group creativity? What mechanisms explain the effect of games on creativity?

• What are the effects of the use of AI on creative workers?

• Which methodologies are best suited to studying the sociomateriality of creativity?

References

• Agogué, M., Levillain, K., Hooge, S. (2015) Gamification of Creativity: Exploring the Usefulness of Serious Games for Ideation. Creativity & Innovation Management, 24, 415–29.

• Amabile, T.M. (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity. Springer-Verlag, New York.
• Ameen, N., Sharma, G.D., Tarba, S., Rao, A., Chopra, R. (2022) Toward Advancing Theory on Creativity in Marketing and Artificial Intelligence. Psychology & Marketing, 39, 1802–25.
• Blomberg, A.J., Kallio, T.J. (2022) A Review of the Physical Context of Creativity: A Three‐dimensional Framework for Investigating the Physical Context of Creativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24, 433–51.
• Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R.E., Svejenova, S. (2018) Towards an Articulation of the Material and Visual Turn in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 39, 597–616.
• Chen, S., Chandler, J., Venkatesh, A. (2020) The Influence of Objects on Creativity. Creativity & Innovation Management, 29, 481–94.
• De Paoli, D., Sauer, E., Ropo, A. (2019) The Spatial Context of Organizations: A Critique of ‘Creative Workspaces’. Journal of Management & Organization, 25, 331–52.
• de Vaujany, F.-X., Vaast, E. (2014) If These Walls Could Talk: The Mutual Construction of Organizational Space and Legitimacy. Organization Science, 25, 713–31.
• Furnari, S. (2014) Interstitial Spaces: Microinteraction Settings and the Genesis of New Practices Between Institutional Fields. Academy of Management Review, 39, 439–62.
• Jones, C., Massa, F.G. (2013) From Novel Practice to Consecrated Exemplar: Unity Temple as a Case of Institutional Evangelizing. Organization Studies, 34, 1099–136.
• Jones, C., Meyer, R., Jancsary, D., Höllerer, M. (2017) The Material and Visual Basis of Institutions. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. SAGE Publications, London, pp. 621–46.
• Mikalef, P., Gupta, M. (2021) Artificial Intelligence Capability: Conceptualization, Measurement Calibration, and Empirical Study on Its Impact on Organizational Creativity and Firm Performance. Information & Management, 58, 103434.
• Orlikowski, W.J. (2007) Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.
• Rampa, R., Parmentier, G. (2023) The Affordances of Technology and Strategic Roadmapping: An Exploration of Its Instrumental, Symbolic, and Political Functions. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 101778.
• Tanggaard, L. (2013) The Sociomateriality of Creativity in Everyday Life. Culture & Psychology, 19, 20–32.
• Wróbel, A.E., Johansen, M.K., Jørgensen, M.S., Cash, P. (2021) Facilitating Creativity: Shaping Team Processes. Creativity & Innovation Management, 30, 742–62.
•