**4. Discussion and conclusion**

In the previous section, a methodological approach to investigating collaborative creativity was presented. The rationale for this is that creativity is composed of various factors that directly or indirectly influence each other, and these interdependencies are rarely simple and linear. Furthermore, the translation of traditional analysis concepts (i.e. fluency, flexibility, and originality) to social collaborative creativity, needs to be established to continue developing creativity research cumulative knowledge expansion by enabling comparison between the results of different studies.

It is, for example, important that findings in creativity research do not conflate creativity as outcome versus creativity as quality—or do not present a clear distinction between outcome versus performance. This can lead to problems in the assessment and analysis of collected empirical data and thus, by extension, the comparison of results between different studies, this especially applies to the originality dimension of creativity. Assessment of originality in creativity can be carried out by external experts grading the results of creative processes in the originality dimension continuum between everyday/traditional to unique/path-breaking, cf., consensual assessment technique, CAT [13]. However, assessment and analysis of the originality dimension in terms of creative quality in the process or more specifically in the group interaction is not as developed as the other dimensions, that is, fluency and flexibility.

In **Figure 2**, it was demonstrated that systematic research studies need to stratify these factors ontologically at different levels to understand, analyze and explain how factors at different levels interact in collaborative creativity and establish conditions that drive interaction quality and productivity.

Moreover, factors at different levels may need different methods of collecting and analyzing data to relate results between different levels, which is supported by a theory-based conceptual framework. Each with appropriate methods for data collection and analysis of mechanisms that at different levels contribute to the emergence of collaborative creativity. The construction of a conceptual framework for research should therefore consider and translate central concepts consistently between levels, enabling comparisons of results between different studies. The suggested conceptual framework for collaborative creativity thus has its function both within and between different research studies (**Figure 3**).

This chapter has presented a social perspective on collaborative creativity evolving through the combination of divergent differences. The premise for developing an understanding of the elements of collaborative creativity is the circular logic captured in two propositions, P1: Interaction drives creativity, and P2: Creativity enables interaction. These propositions express the relational logic that "the interactants need creativity for divergent differences to really inter-act." Proposition P1 has been shown in research studies to have certain predictors, while proposition P2 has been shown to need the support of certain prerequisites.

Predictors of creativity:

Social interaction always establishes some kind of emergent property, in collaborative creativity, a specific interaction quality conceptualized as flow synchronization has been shown to be an emergent factor.

Idea generation develops Divergent thinking, which, in turn, initiates Executive functions. An example is the relationship between idea generation and creative productivity, which develops openness also in social interaction, such as empathic understanding of others' perspectives and perceptions.

#### **Figure 3.**

*Collaborative creativity—predictors of creativity-related prerequisites for interaction.*

#### *Collaborative Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110608*

It is crucial that the Originality dimension is assessed especially in studies on creative group interaction because it is necessary to get results relevant to creativity. But it is also methodologically important to avoid the problematic concept of "dynamics", which seems to be the case when only the dimensions of Fluency and Flexibility are assessed and analyzed. It risks establishing yet another black box hiding what flexibility and fluency in social interaction can be also making comparison to other studies cumbersome, which in turn risks limiting the development of the research area that constitutes collaborative creativity.

Prerequisites for interaction:

An approach characterized by Mindfulness seems to work mutually reinforcing with Openness to others in a way that strengthens integrative action, that is, interaction between, for example, group members. These are two prerequisites for collaborative creativity. Two others are the desire to combine divergent differences and improvisational approach. These four have been shown to be prerequisites for collaborative creativity because they both support creative productivity and exchange in socially interdependent collaboration.

The presented premise should also constitute the pedagogical logic for didactic strategies that aim to activate predictors and prerequisites of collaborative creativity through the training of necessary skills and knowledge development. Acquiring these abilities and establishing relationships requires training and knowledge development. Education, training, and facilitation of collaborative creativity need to strive to structure learning and activate abilities based on the ontological prerequisites of creativity. The structuring of content should be connected in such a way that the students have the opportunity to be activated in creative productivity, analyzing the outcome of interaction and exchange, reflecting on flow experience and interaction quality in relation to the emergent content and evolving structures.
