Créativité et organisation: Tensions communicationnelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La créativité constitue à de nombreux égards un objet contre-intuitif pour les sciences sociales. L’opinion courante l’associe davantage au trait de génie, à l’étincelle aussi brillante qu’inexpliquée. Il serait alors bien présomptueux de tenter d’en saisir froidement les mécanismes. Pourtant, le terme créativité a envahi les organisations ces dernières années. Plus seulement cantonnée aux métiers traditionnels de la création, elle doit désormais être mobilisée par les concepteurs des différents supports de communication, les rédacteurs, les stratèges en communication et consultants spécialisés, mais aussi les chefs de projets, les animateurs de communautés, les responsables RH, la comptabilité ; bref tous sont appelés à la barre de la créativité, supposant que tous y contribuent. Dans ce régime, doit-on conclure qu’en communication, on ne peut pas ne pas être créatif ? Cependant, son omniprésence ne va pas sans une impression de flou associée à son emploi. Entend-on strictement la même chose dans tous ces domaines ? À quel élément essentiel à la vie des organisations est-elle censée répondre pour être ainsi constamment mobilisée, voire galvaudée ? Comment s’accommode-t-elle avec une logique gestionnaire de plus en plus rationalisante où le risque économique inhibe le risque inhérent à la mise en place de processus de création ? Ce ne sont là que quelques questions auxquelles les auteurs de ce dossier thématique répondent, tout en articulant la relation entre créativité, organisation et communication. In many ways, creativity is a counterintuitive object for the social sciences. Since creativity is generally associated with the stroke of genius, it would then be very presumptuous to try to grasp its mechanisms objectively. However, lately, the term creativity has invaded organizations’ discourses. No longer confined to the traditional professions linked to creation, it must now be mobilized by various communication media, editors, communication strategists and specialized consultants, but also by project managers, community leaders, HR managers, accountability, and so on. In short, everyone is called to creativity, supposing that we all contribute to it. Must we conclude from these observations that in communication it's impossible not be creative? However, creativity omnipresence does not go without a feeling of blur associated with its use. Is the definition the same in all these areas? What essential element in the life of the organizations is it supposed to answer to be so constantly mobilized—even overused? Through the articulation between creativity, organization and communication, these are just a few questions to which the authors of this Special Issue answer.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".