探索五位理工科女性世界中的創造力：她們對創造力的詮釋以及理工背景對其創造力的影響
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2019-09-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立臺灣師範大學
National Taiwan Normal University
National Taiwan Normal University
Abstract
本研究從理工科女性的角度探討其如何詮釋創造力，同時瞭解她們的生活經驗對其創造力展現的影響。研究者從女性主義的立場出發，採用質性研究中的敘事研究法進行闡述，以立意取樣選定五位研究參與者，並透過半結構式的深入訪談、非參與性觀察及文件檢視以蒐集資料。研究結果發現，五位理工科女性的共同特質包括處事態度嚴謹、目標導向、喜歡彈性靈活的模式、對學習與工作充滿自信、多樣的興趣嗜好及正向積極六項特質；另外，從能力的觀點，她們定義創造力為解決問題的能力、發挸更多新問題的能力、表達的能力及改變的能力，而解決問題的能力是其核心，此反映出科學創造力的本質；至於富有創造力產品的元素，除了新穎，她們還提到成本效益、滿足客戶需求、美感、好玩等。此外，五位理工科女性基本上皆認為理工科系嚴謹的邏輯思考訓練對於創造力展現是有所幫助的，此與文獻所提出創造力的展現不僅需要擴散思考亦需要聚斂思考的論點不謀而合。還有值得注意的一點是，五位研究參與者皆提出創造力不僅可以表現在藝術方面且可以涵蓋各個領域的看法，此乃支持了創造力存在於人類各個活動領域之論述，也說明了過去有些實證研究以學生的主修領域來區分高低創造力組是不適宜的，同時給予將來有關創造力的實證研究可資參酌之提醒。
This study examined how women majoring in science and engineering interpreted creativity and how their life experiences affected their expression of creativity. This study used a qualitative research method for narrative inquiry combined with the feminist approach to explore major research questions. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit five participants. Data collection involved semistructured in-depth interviews, document review, and observation. Data analysis revealed six qualities these women had in common: earnestness, goal orientation, preference for flexibility, professional and academic confidence, diverse interests, and proactive attitudes. From the perspective of ability, these women defined creativity as the ability to solve problems, to produce problems, to express themselves, and to facilitate transformation. They believed that the ability to solve problems was at the heart of creativity, which was in line with the essence of scientific creativity. For key elements in creative products, they mentioned novelty, cost-performance ratio, customization, aesthetic feeling, and playfulness. Moreover, they believed that logical reasoning derived from their professional training was helpful for their expression of creativity, supporting the argument that convergent thinking is integral to creativity. Notably, these women mentioned that creativity could be expressed not merely in arts but in any human endeavor, upholding the viewpoint that creativity exists in every field. This also implies that some empirical studies' use of college students' majors as a means for categorizing them into high- and low-creativity groups is inappropriate and suggests that such research design should be avoided in future.
This study examined how women majoring in science and engineering interpreted creativity and how their life experiences affected their expression of creativity. This study used a qualitative research method for narrative inquiry combined with the feminist approach to explore major research questions. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit five participants. Data collection involved semistructured in-depth interviews, document review, and observation. Data analysis revealed six qualities these women had in common: earnestness, goal orientation, preference for flexibility, professional and academic confidence, diverse interests, and proactive attitudes. From the perspective of ability, these women defined creativity as the ability to solve problems, to produce problems, to express themselves, and to facilitate transformation. They believed that the ability to solve problems was at the heart of creativity, which was in line with the essence of scientific creativity. For key elements in creative products, they mentioned novelty, cost-performance ratio, customization, aesthetic feeling, and playfulness. Moreover, they believed that logical reasoning derived from their professional training was helpful for their expression of creativity, supporting the argument that convergent thinking is integral to creativity. Notably, these women mentioned that creativity could be expressed not merely in arts but in any human endeavor, upholding the viewpoint that creativity exists in every field. This also implies that some empirical studies' use of college students' majors as a means for categorizing them into high- and low-creativity groups is inappropriate and suggests that such research design should be avoided in future.