Impasse Work in Creative Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this qualitative study we explore how groups who are deeply engaged in creative work cope with impasses. We take a process and practice approach to creativity and analyze group interaction through which members find new ways for progress when they are stuck in a creative process. Through ethnographic field video data of group interaction at a documentary film production company we theorize practices that creative workers use to overcome such pressing situations. Our multimodal analysis reveals three distinct impasse work practices: isolating, managing competing ideas and sidestepping through which groups move through impasses or fail to do so and we show the implications that each of these practices have for creative group engagement. Leveraging our field video data our study shows that groups sense impasses before they verbally explore novel solutions. Our study is unique in that it combines verbal, embodied and material interaction in the development of a general theory of impasse work in creative processes. The findings have implications for how creative groups deal with deeply engaging work, the role of iteration in creativity and advances the embodied perspective on creative interaction.
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 | 0.020 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".