A culture of creativity: design education and the creative industries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the influence of the creative industries on design education in New Zealand. Design/methodology/approach A range of contemporary literature is presented to help define the term “creative industries”, and to locate this new “culture of creativity” within a wider global trend of creative cultural theory. Findings Cultural policy initiatives from Britain, Canada and New Zealand are reviewed and used to demonstrate how creative industries theory has sought to combine social, cultural and economic development. Research limitations/implications This paper is primarily concerned with recent changes to design education and the ways in which universities and polytechnics are attempting to meet the challenges of this new holistic approach to creativity and innovation. Practical implications In the final section the concept of interdisciplinary study of design is explored. This new model is developed through the example of a new interdisciplinary programme structure developed by the Wellington Institute of Technology in New Zealand. Originality/value In conclusion the concept of a “virtuous cycle” is used to describe the relationship between design education and the creative industries. This paper argues that, if this cycle continues, the creative industries will expand to become the model for a new economy based on social, cultural and economic entrepreneurship and change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it