La culture créative des organisations comme substrat à l’apprentissage créatif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La créativité, autant comme acte processuel que comme résultat de ce processus, est un trope fondateur des agences de communication marketing (McFall, 2004, Nixon 2003). Certains avancent même que la créativité serait la raison d’être des agences (Nixon, 2003). Or pour certains, la créativité ne s’apprendrait pas – en témoigne le parcours académique éclectique des créatifs – ou ne s’apprendrait qu’au contact des pairs (Powell, 2006), à travers des dynamiques de production de sens (Drazin, Glynn & Kazanjian, 1999), des frictions entre les différents corps d’emploi (Hirschman, 1989) ou au contact des clients (Cronin, 2004). Cet article a un triple objectif : 1) d’abord proposer une définition opératoire pour mieux saisir cette culture créative ; 2) l’exemplifier à l’aide d’une étude de cas dans une petite agence de onze personnes 3) mettre en relation la notion de culture créative avec celle d’apprentissage et de transmission du savoir créatif. Il s’en dégage que la performativité de l’ethos créatif des employés comme celle de l’agence participent à maintenir cette culture créative autant qu’elle transmet des formes d’apprentissage de qui est et de ce qui est créatif à travers des dynamiques identitaires, l’éducation à faire auprès des clients et l’utilisation de structures de légitimation interne et externe à l’agence. Creativity, both as a procedural act as well as the result of such a process, is a founding trope of marketing communication agencies (McFall, 2004, Nixon 2003). Some even argue that creativity is the raison d’être of those agencies (Nixon, 2003). But for some, creativity cannot be learned – as shown by the eclectic academic background of creatives – or it could be learned only through being in contact with peers (Powell, 2006), with clients (Cronin, 2004), through the process of creating meaning (Drazin, Glynn & Kazanjian, 1999), or frictions between different job categories (Hirschman, 1989). The goal of this article is threefold: 1) to propose an operational definition of “creative culture” in order to better understand it; 2) to exemplify it using a case study of a small agency 3) to articulate a relationship between the three related concepts: culture, creative learning and transmission of creative knowledge. The study demonstrates how the performativity of the creative ethos of both employees and agency interact to maintain this creative culture while indicating who and what is creative, through dynamics of identity, educating clients and the use of internal and external structures of legitimation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".