Economic Creativity And Economic Education

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to identify aspects of economic education that can contribute to the formation and development of economic creativity. The methodology of dialectical and systemic (holistic) approach, methods of analysis and synthesis, hypothetical-deductive, experimental training, and modeling of the creative process in its manifestation in the subject area are used. Nor does the traditional understanding of creativity through novelty and utility provide practical guidance, as many researchers note. The author offers an understanding of economic creativity as a solution to economic problems based on economic contradictions. Their resolution is the basis of economic creativity. Combining what was previously incompatible is an essential aspect of all the considered methods of creativity development. The resolution of the contradiction is carried out by integral synthesizing thinking that combines the conceptual, figurative-symbolic, and emotional-value sides and is carried out according to unified dialectical principles. Therefore, economic education focused on developing economic creativity should include scientific and theoretical aspects and everyday experience and training in the ability to find and analyze economic problems and resolve economic contradictions. Orientation to pragmatic and creative economic thinking requires purposeful development of aesthetic-symbolic and emotional-value attitude to economic realities, which should also be considered in economic education.

Keywords:

Introduction

In economic theory, the current development of the world economic system is often characterized as forming a creative economy. In such an economy, an important role is played by its actors' intellectual and creative potential, which is translated into effective innovations. (Loo, 2017, pp. 55-57). Therefore, more and more theoretical research and applied research are devoted to economic innovation and creativity in economic activity. However, insufficient elaboration of several fundamental theoretical problems and insufficient empirical basis prevent the development of practically effective and theoretically based approaches and creativity development in the economy.

Problem Statement

In connection with ideas about the creative economy, creative activity problems in the economy and its maintenance and stimulation are attracting more and more attention. They are related to more general problems of the essence of creativity in general and the possibility of purposefully forming and developing a person's creative abilities. All these issues are related to economic education problems and its role and opportunities in influencing the creative potential of economic actors. The totality of these problems and the issues considered in this article are defined.

Research Questions

Three questions are key to the study of the problems considered:

• how are the problems of creativity in Economics understood in modern economic science and practical economic activity?

• how does this understanding relate to modern concepts of creativity in general and how can these concepts be applied to economic activity?

• what aspects of professional economic education can contribute to the development of a specialist's creative qualities?

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of the study of these issues is to determine, based on a certain theoretical model of economic creativity, the fundamental requirements for economic education, the implementation of which will contribute to developing the creative potential of economic entities.

Research Methods

The main approaches to resolve these issues are: a systematic, interdisciplinary approach aimed at applying to the economic sphere a complete modern theoretical model of creative thinking in General; a dialectical approach focused on understanding in a single theoretical model both the totality of various factors of economic consciousness, and the internal inconsistency of economic activity that determines the content of problems solved by economic creativity. Also methodologically important is the principle of integral understanding of thinking (developed in the Russian philosophical tradition by Slavophiles and the school of unity) - understanding of real (including economic) thinking as a synthetic unity of verbal-conceptual, figurative-symbolic and value-emotional aspects.

Methods of analysis and synthesis of information about approaches to the problems of creativity in the economy, the method of analogies between the manifestations of creativity in different spheres of activity; hypothetical-deductive method of modeling the conditions for the development of creative abilities and partial experimental testing of hypotheses through the practice of special training courses; a special method of objective description of the subjective creative process by analyzing the transformation of the subject of creativity are used in the research.

Findings

Creativity in Economics is usually seen as a natural resource. It can be detected, stimulated, and used. But its purposeful formation and development with the help of special education is often not a question. The definitions of creativity borrowed from the Humanities through novelty, originality, non - standardness, and "divergence" are descriptive and do not reveal creative thinking technology. Philip Kotler's proposed "Lateral marketing", based on the ideas of "Lateral Thinking" of Edward de Bono, comes down to recommendations to do something unusual. On this basis, it is impossible to develop creative abilities purposefully. It is no accident that the authoritative "Harvard Business Review" calls the most effective method of structural thinking for creating something novel and useful TRIZ created in the USSR, derised by Altshuller (Neren, 2011). Its main ideas are the objectivity of the foundations of creative thinking; resolution of contradictions of the subject of creativity; the connection of a logical approach with the development of creative imagination. "Techniques of creativity" you can't just apply to the economy. It is necessary to determine the specifics of economic problems based on economic contradictions, and from this – the main requirements for creative thinking in the economy that resolves these contradictions. Since the mid-20th century, numerous studies have shown that problem finding and creativity were significantly correlated (Abdulla et al., 2018). At the same time, leading modern researchers of creativity argue that the traditional definition of creativity, which focuses on the originality and appropriateness of people creative products and the ability to generate novel and effective ideas are not effective enough today (Hao et al., 2016). In this definition, there is no main thing – what is and how creative thinking works.

More promising are the concepts linking creativity with "divergent thinking" (Beketayev & Runko, 2016); with "ability to combine remote ideas" (Bendetowich et al., 2017), the "homospatial processes", which "consists of actively conceiving two or more discrete identities occupying the same space, a concept leading to the articulation of new identities" (Rotenberg, 1999, p. 831); and "conceptual Integration" or "conceptual blending" (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 18).

In these approaches, there is a more General principle of creative thinking-combining the previously incompatible. In philosophical and methodological terms, this is the resolution of a dialectical contradiction, variants of the synthesis of the opposite.

In our conception, multilevel dialectical synthesis is a philosophical – logical and methodologically effective theoretical model of the creative act. The final synthesis generates a new independent being of a different nature and is realized as a «spatial» (transfer to other conditional space of objects, events, processes, ideas); «temporary» (deployment of the current development potential, or transition to the stage); «semantic content» (the identification of the possibilities of the idealized object of creativity and its transformations into a qualitatively new object with a new meaning and «idea»). Creative act is a semantic transformation of the object of creativity and is realized in a holistic (conceptual-informational, aesthetic-figurative, appraisal-value) thinking at the level of superconciousness, realizing the creative tendencies of the development of culture (Semenov, 2018). In accordance with this understanding of creativity, it is necessary to determine the specifics of economic contradictions and ways to resolve them in economic activity. The methodology of economic creativity should be based on this.

The resolution of economic contradictions is the" technology" of economic creativity. Our research group considered the contradictions of economic interests at the end of the twentieth century, within the framework of a larger economic whole (Iomdin). We believe that economic contradictions are a broader concept. They are possible between different targets of an economic entity; between its strategies, costs and their effectiveness; resources and opportunities, risks and stability, etc.

The issue is not sufficiently studied. But the need for this topic in economic education, in our opinion, is obvious. Another important aspect of improving economic education is to take into account the influence that collective, public spiritual guidelines have on individual creativity, as many studies have shown (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Runco & Beghetto, 2019). Such influences are not limited to economic knowledge and experience. The subject's emotional and evaluative attitude to the problem also influences creativity, which has already been the subject of special research (Ivcevic et al., 2007; Trnka et al., 2016). "Aesthetic intelligentsia", by Pauline Brown. We must also take into account the pragmatic orientation of economic activity. Some researchers directly question whether economic knowledge is a science, "art" (Shiller, 2013).

We believe that any creative act includes figurative, economic-symbolic, and emotional-value aspects. Creative thinking, including economic thinking, is holistic. Creativity cannot be realized through "under" or "not", but through "above" or "over " consciousness. It is the socio-cultural nature, integral and aesthetically designed in form, dialectically contradictory, that unconsciously implements not instincts and social automatism, but the principles and tendencies of culture, science and social life. This understanding of the creative act is of great practical importance for the formation of the educational system and the development of human creative abilities (Semenov, 2017).

In turn, the understanding of creativity in Economics should become the basis for the development of training courses at various levels aimed at the formation and development of creative abilities in this area. The methodological scheme for the development of the course "Fundamentals of economic creativity" can be presented in the most General way as follows: the characteristics of the object of creativity, i.e. the specifics of economic problems, determine the requirements for the corresponding qualities and abilities of the subject of creativity, i.e. the features of economic and General consciousness, the mentality of an entrepreneur, the head of economic structures, and a specialist economist. And the object and subject of economic creativity are United precisely in its process, i.e. in practical economic thinking as a solution of economic problems. Such a technology of formation of educational courses basics of professional creativity was developed in the 80-90s of the last century and implemented in a number of educational institutions and systems improving the country's skills, together with research institutes higher education programs for NIIVO of the USSR. We believe that both incentive and support systems for creative workers, as well as attempts to simply involve specialists (and train students) and General heuristic methods, are not effective enough. Also, the approaches of the often proposed "lateral thinking" are not sufficiently instrumental, i.e. they simply recommend "looking at problems from an unusual side". The real problem of economic (as well as any other) thinking can be understood through the study of its specific contradictions, the resolution of which is the true economic creativity. The first versions of the course on economic creativity basics on such grounds were developed in 1989-1990. and were implemented in Ufa and Kazakhstan. The analysis of the currently proposed domestic and foreign approaches to these problems shows the prospects of such a methodology based on the identification of objective contradictions of economic activity, taking into account the current situation and new research.

Conclusion

Considering the issues of creativity in the economy allows us to determine the main requirements for building a economic education system focused on the formation and development of creative abilities. Such education should include sections on economic problems and underlying economic contradictions, as well as approaches to their resolution, which is the essence of economic creativity.

Taking into account the practical orientation of economic activity and the holistic nature of creative thinking, economic education should include the purposeful and systematic development of economic-imaginative and value-oriented inclusion in professional training of humanitarian components (aesthetic, axiological, psychological). Thus, it is possible to promote the formation of a holistic creative professional thinking.

Acknowledgments

The paper was prepared as part of the research plan of the Ufa federal research center of the Russian academy of sciences on the state order of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

References

1. Abdulla, A., Paek, S., Gramond, B., & Runco, M. (2018). Problem finding and creativity: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 3–14.
2. Amabile, T., & Pratt, M. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183.
3. Beketayev, K., & Runko, M. (2016). Scoring Divergent Thinking Tests by Computer With a Semantics-Based Algorithm. Europe’s Journal of Psyhology, 12(2), 210–220.
4. Bendetowich, D., Urbanski, M., Aichelburg, C., & Levy, R. (2017). Brain morphometry predicts individual creative potential and the ability to combine remote ideas. Cortex, Elseviers, 86, 216–229.
5. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Minds Hidden Complexieties. N.Y. : Basic Books.
6. Hao, N., Tang, M., Yang, J., Wang, Q., & Runco, M. (2016). A New Tool to Measure Malevolent Creativity: The Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(682), 1–24.
7. Ivcevic, Z., Brackett, M., & Mayer, J. (2007). Emotional intelligence and emotional creativity. Journal of Personality, 75, 199–236.
8. Loo, S. (2017). Creative Working in the Knowledge Economy. Abingdon, Oxfordshire. Routledge Ltd.
9. Neren, U. (2011, January 14). The Number One Key to Innovation: Scarcity. https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-number-one-key-to-innovati
10. Rotenberg, A. (1999). Homospatial Process. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1, 103–108.
11. Runco, M., & Beghetto, R. (2019). Primary and secondary creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 7–10.
12. Semenov, S. (2017). Tvorchestvo: «pod» - ili «sverkh» soznaniye? [Creative Work: «Under» or «Super» consciousness?]. Herald of RGGU. Series «Psychology. Pedagogy. Education», 1(7), 135–147.
13. Semenov, S. (2018). Tvorcheskiy akt: sushchnost', logika i psikhologiya (zarubezhnyye i otechestvennyye podkhody) [Creative Act: Essence, Logic and Psychology (Foreign and Domestic Approaches)]. Philosophy of Creativity, 4, 113–138.
14. Shiller, R. (2013). «Is Economics a Science?». https://theguardian.com
15. Trnka, R., Zahradnik, M., & Kuska, M. (2016). Emotional Creativity and Real-Life involvement in different types of creative Leisure Activities. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 348–356.