**5. Data analysis**

Creativity components Personal Interpersonal Equipment Conjectural

Proceedings of the International Conference on Interdisciplinary Studies (ICIS 2016) - Interdisciplinarity and Creativity

model(s) Supervisor support Quality of the research

Challenging team

Degree of individual freedom within the team

Personal contribution recognition

Additional data acquired from the interviews and design practical activities were used by the supervisor to characterise each student creativity components, as listed in the first column of Table 3. Each group of students were supervised during a semester. At the end, students were

Each group of students was formed by the students themselves, based on affinities to each other and to the design mission. The design mission was formulated by each group, from the

in any filed Team members support Research premises Balanced tasks

Communication Access to information Visibility of the results

Support to access materials, consumables or special equipment

Team cohesion Any kind of benefit,

equipment Mission clarity

Organization risk policy

rewarding

Future usage/ applicability of the work

Existence of role

Existence of a mentor

Experience in crafting, manufacturing, repairing things

Theoretical/ scientific knowledge on specific subject

Theoretical/ scientific knowledge on alterne subjects

Sport, dancing, scenic movement experience (hobby)

Musical and visual art experience (hobby)

experience (hobby)

development goals

Awareness of professional goals Awareness of personal social goals and achievements Ability to stand-up/ have own say

The interest for paradox, curiosity

in the Knowledge Society

168

Originality

The ability to question and doubt

Fantasy

The ability to make associations

> Conceptual representation

> > Intuition

Not being afraid to take risks

Aesthetic perception Literature/ poetry

Openness Awareness of personal

**Table 3.** Grouped items of the survey dimensions

interviewed with concern to the survey dimensions.

The median values for the answers regarding interpersonal, were rather high in what concerns the supervisor role (*M* = 5.4), perceived as a mediator and important professional guide. During the interviews, occurred the fact that students, at least at the beginning of the work in student groups, have low self-confidence in what concerns their ability to bring to the end the design mission, mostly because they lack practical experience, also lack experience to apply in specific situations the theoretical knowledge. Median scores presented in Table 4 show that respond‐ ents consider the team support and good communication as very important creative incentives, but show certain disregard to the degree of liberty within the team (Table 4). During the interviews, this appeared to be linked to a certain fear to liable for any/some aspects of the project. Also, this was linked with the rather low availability to undertake risky decisions regarding the engineering design or project management.

The own contribution recognition reached high scores, and shows a delicate balance between the team-work values and personal contribution delimitation, often source for abandoning the project or rejection of critics.


**Table 4.** Interpersonal dimension scores

Conjectural dimension scores are shown in Table 5 and reveal that respondents do not link the creative endeavour to its immediate applicability, while balanced tasks, clear mission received high scores. In our opinion this might reveal a dependence on clear, standardised framework, schematic thinking, which might stand against creative approach. An interesting low received organisational risk policy shows that the students do not necessary link this component to the creativity-simulative environment.


**Table 5.** Conjectural dimension scores

Equipment components were recognised as very important, with high scores, showing one more time that the students are reliant on material support for creative design, in spite of conceptualisation and initiative (Table 6).


**Table 6.** Equipment dimension scores

In what concerns the creativity components, they were strongly correlated with the personal experience, in the first place, followed by interpersonal and conjectural components. The ability to question and doubt was correlated (*r* = 0.5713, *P* < 0.0001) to the experience of having a mentor in any filed and with the theoretical/ scientific knowledge (*r* = 0.3801, *P* < 0.0001). The ability to make associations was correlated with any previous experience in arts (*r* = 0.39801, *P* < 0.0001) and not being afraid to take risks is correlated at the 0.01 level (two-tailed), with the awareness of personal development goals sub-item (*r* = 0.4302, *P* < 0.0001), with the visibility of the results (*r* = 0.5608, *P* < 0.0001) and with any kind of benefit, rewarding (*r* = 0.3907, *P* < 0.0001). During the interviews, this was confirmed, as respondents linked their boldness in approaching risky design or management alternatives with the incentives or recognition of their work.
