CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Innovative Human-Technology InteractionDesign Education and PracticeArt, Technology, and Culture

What Counts as ‘Creative’ Work? Articulating Four Epistemic Positions in Creativity-Oriented HCI Research

Open access
Hsueh, Stacy, Ciolfi Felice, Marianela, Alaoui, Sarah Fdili, Mackay, Wendy E.·2024·Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3613904.3642854
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper examines prevailing understandings of creativity in creative computing research through the lens of feminist epistemology. We analyze “creativity support” as a construct that encodes different definitions of creative work. Drawing on existing literature and practices, the paper surfaces four views about creative work that underpin current creative technologies and HCI research: problem-solving, cognitive emergence, embodied action, and tool-mediated expert activity. Each view makes different claims about the role of computing in creative work and the creative subject assumed. We articulate the attendant politics of each view and illustrate how critical feminist epistemology can serve as an analytical tool to reason about the trade-offs of various creativity definitions. The paper concludes with recommendations for integrating feminist values into creativity-oriented HCI research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3613904.3642854

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • State-of-the-art generative AI systems match human creativity in certain evaluations and can enhance the creative output of knowledge workers.

    “State-ofthe-art generative AI systems have reached proficiency levels that not only match human creativity in certain evaluations [20,33], but can also enhance the creative output of knowledge workers [1,2,30].”

    From Human Creativity in the Age of LLMs: Randomized Experiments on Divergent and Convergent Thinking (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

    Section 5.3 (p. 6) describes AI-driven ideation tools intended to help people discover useful ideas more quickly and abundantly. It does not establish that state-of-the-art generative AI enhances the measured creative output of knowledge workers. This source is cited for that latter claim, not for the separate claim about matching human creativity. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Creativity support tools are designed to enhance both the creative person and the creative activity, aiming to 'make people more creative more often' and facilitating creative activities by improving the processes, usability, and workflows involved in creative work.

    “These CSTs are designed to enhance both the creative person and the creative activity [45], aiming to 'make people more creative more often' [89] and facilitating creative activities by improving the processes, usability, and work ￿ ows involved in creative work [81].”

    From Creativity in the Age of AI: Evaluating the Impact of Generative AI on Design Outputs and Designers' Creative Thinking (2024) · cites this paper as [45]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. [7][7] Christopher Alexander. 1964. Notes on the Synthesis of Form . Vol. 5. Harvard University Press. -
  2. [9][9] Salvatore Andolina, Hendrik Schneider, Joel Chan, Khalil Klouche, Giulio Jacucci, and Steven Dow. 2017. Crowdboard: augmenting in-person idea generation with real-time crowds. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition . 106-118. -
  3. [10][10] Carol Bacchi et al. 2012. Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open journal of political science 2, 01 (2012), 1. -
  4. [16][16] Howard S Becker. 2008. Art worlds: updated and expanded . University of California Press. -
  5. [21][21] Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, Joseph Kaye, and Phoebe Sengers. 2005. Critical technical practice as a methodology for values in design. In CHI 2005 Workshop on quality, values, and choices . Oregon Portland, 2-7. -
  6. [26][26] Leah Buechley, Daniela K Rosner, Eric Paulos, and Amanda Williams. 2009. DIY for CHI: methods, communities, and values of reuse and customization. In CHI'09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 4823-4826. -
  7. [28][28] Matthew Chalmers and Ian MacColl. 2003. Seamful and seamless design in ubiquitous computing. In Workshop at the crossroads: The interaction of HCI and systems issues in UbiComp , Vol. 8. -
  8. [34][34] Nigel Cross. 2001. Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design issues 17, 3 (2001), 49-55. -
  9. [36][36] Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Mihaly Csikzentmihaly. 1990. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience . Vol. 1990. Harper & Row New York. -
  10. [38][38] Lincoln Dahlberg. 2011. Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four 'positions'. New media & society 13, 6 (2011), 855-872. -
  11. [40][40] John Dewey. 2005. Art as experience . Penguin. -
  12. [41][41] Alan Dix. 2007. Designing for appropriation. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI... but not as we know it-Volume 2 . BCS Learning & Development Ltd., 27-30. -
  13. [44][44] A Dvorak, NL Merrick, WL Dealey, and GC Ford. 1936. Typewriting behaviour, American 463 Book Company. New-York, NJ 464 (1936), 465. -
  14. [45][45] Madeleine Clare Elish and Danah Boyd. 2018. Situating methods in the magic of Big Data and AI. Communication monographs 85, 1 (2018), 57-80. -
  15. [47][47] K Anders Ericsson. 1999. Creative expertise as superior reproducible performance: Innovative and fexible aspects of expert performance. Psychological Inquiry 10, 4 (1999), 329-333. -
  16. [50][50] Daniel Fällman. 2003. In romance with the materials of mobile interaction: A phenomenological approach to the design of mobile information technology . Ph. D. Dissertation. -
  17. [60][60] James J Gibson. 1977. The theory of afordances. Hilldale, USA 1, 2 (1977). -
  18. [63][63] D Grant. 1979. Design methodology and design methods. Design Methods and Theories 13, 1 (1979), 46-47. -
  19. [64][64] J. P. Guilford. 1950. Creativity. The American Psychologist 5 (1950), 9. -
  20. [66][66] Gaëtan Hadjeres, François Pachet, and Frank Nielsen. 2017. Deepbach: a steerable model for bach chorales generation. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 1362-1371. -
  21. [65][65] Joy P Guilford. 1957. Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological review 64, 2 (1957), 110. -
  22. [67][67] Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist studies 14, 3 (1988), 575-599. -
  23. [70][70] Steve Harrison, Deborah Tatar, and Phoebe Sengers. 2007. The three paradigms of HCI. In Alt. Chi. Session at the SIGCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems San Jose, California, USA . 1-18. -
  24. [75][75] Daniel J Huppatz. 2015. Revisiting Herbert Simon's ?science of design? Design Issues 31, 2 (2015), 29-40. -
  25. [78][78] Jennifer Jacobs, Joel R Brandt, Radomír Meeh, and Mitchel Resnick. 2018. Dy-˘ namic Brushes: Extending Manual Drawing Practices with Artist-Centric Programming Tools. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1-4. -
  26. [80][80] Jennifer Jennifer Mary Jacobs. 2017. Dynamic drawing: Broadening practice and participation in procedural art . Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. -
  27. [86][86] Andruid Kerne, Steven M Smith, Eunyee Koh, Hyun Choi, and Ross Graeber. 2008. An experimental method for measuring the emergence of new ideas in 30. information discovery. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 24, 5 (2008), 460-477. -
  28. [95][95] Ann Light. 2011. HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the queering of interaction with computers. Interacting with computers 23, 5 (2011), 430-438. -
  29. [96][96] Claude Lvi-Strauss. 1966. The savage mind . University of Chicago Press. -
  30. [99][99] Martin N Marshall. 1996. Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice 13, 6 (1996), 522-526. -
  31. [101][101] Nolwenn Maudet. 2017. Designing Design Tools . Ph. D. Dissertation. Université Paris Saclay (COmUE). -
  32. [107][107] Srishti Palani, David Ledo, George Fitzmaurice, and Fraser Anderson. 2022. ' I don't want to feel like I'm working in a 1960s factory': The Practitioner Perspective on Creativity Support Tool Adoption. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1-18. -
  33. [109][109] Michael Polanyi. 2009. The tacit dimension . University of Chicago press. -
  34. [111][111] Johan Redstrom. 2017. Making design theory . MIT Press. -
  35. [113][113] David Ribes, Andrew S Hofman, Steven C Slota, and Geofrey C Bowker. 2019. The logic of domains. Social studies of science 49, 3 (2019), 281-309. -
  36. [115][115] Yvonne Rogers. 2012. HCI theory: classical, modern, and contemporary. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics 5, 2 (2012), 1-129. -
  37. [114][114] Carl R Rogers. 1954. Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A review of general semantics (1954), 249-260. -
  38. [118][118] Mark A Runco and Garrett J Jaeger. 2012. The standard defnition of creativity. Creativity research journal 24, 1 (2012), 92-96. -
  39. [122][122] Ben Shneiderman. 1993. 1.1 direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. Sparks of innovation in human-computer interaction 17 (1993), 1993. -
  40. [126][126] Herbert A Simon. 1973. The structure of ill structured problems. Artifcial intelligence 4, 3-4 (1973), 181-201. -
  41. [128][128] Herbert A Simon. 2019. The sciences of the artifcial . MIT press. -
  42. [127][127] Herbert A Simon. 2001. Creativity in the arts and the sciences. The Kenyon Review 23, 2 (2001), 203-220. -
  43. [132][132] Susan Leigh Star and Anselm Strauss. 1999. Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) 8, 1 (1999), 9-30. -
  44. [133][133] Lucy Suchman. 2002. Located accountabilities in technology production. Scandinavian journal of information systems 14, 2 (2002), 7. -
  45. [139][139] Ron Wakkary and Leah Maestri. 2008. Aspects of everyday design: Resourcefulness, adaptation, and emergence. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 24, 5 (2008), 478-491. -
  46. [144][144] Haijun Xia, Bruno Araujo, Tovi Grossman, and Daniel Wigdor. 2016. Objectoriented drawing. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 4610-4621.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hsueh, S., Ciolfi Felice, M., Alaoui, S. F., & Mackay, W. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-05-11
Issue
497
Pages
1-15
DOI
10.1145/3613904.3642854
OpenAlex
W4396832419
Cited by
33
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 18
FWCI
10.63
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of the Arts London Research Online (University of the Arts London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-22-EXEN-0006)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
Keywords
creativity, creative work, creativity support, feminist epistemology, creative computing, human-computer interaction research, definition of creativity, problem solving, cognitive emergence, embodied action, creative subject

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review