Cited by 91Diverse Music Education InsightsCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceArtistic and Creative Research

Creative Collaboration and Collaborative Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Open access
Barrett, Margaret S., Creech, Andrea, Zhukov, Katie·2021·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Studies of creativity emerging from cultural psychology and social psychology perspectives challenge individualist conceptions of creativity to argue that social interaction, communication, and collaboration are key elements in creativity. In recent work creative collaboration has been proposed to be “distributed” between audiences, materials, embodied actions, and the historico-socio-cultural affordances of the creative activity and environment, thus expanding the potentialities of creative collaboration beyond instances of direct human interaction and engagement. Music performance, improvisation and composition may be viewed as exemplary “laboratories” of creative collaboration through the combined elements of audiences, materials, embodied actions and historico-socio-cultural affordances and constraints. This article reports the findings of a systematic literature review of creative collaboration and collaborative creativity in music. We sought to identify what has been currently investigated in relation to these terms and concepts in music, with what methodologies and in what settings. Findings indicate that studies were undertaken in higher education, professional development and professional practice predominantly, leading to an emergent phenomenon of interest, collaborative creative learning. Musical genres were jazz, popular, western classical, contemporary and world musics across the musical processes of composing, improvising and performing. Studies in higher education and professional development settings focused on identifying those practices that supported learning rather than the nature of collaborative creative approaches or the outcomes of creative collaboration. Participants were primarily male, with small sample sizes. Methodologies were largely qualitative with an emphasis on case study using observation, interview and reflective diary methods. Further areas for research include: the investigation of gendered approaches to creative collaboration, collaborative creativity, and collaborative creative learning; the use of more diverse research methodologies and methods and techniques including large-scale quantitative studies and arts-based and arts-led approaches; and the investigation of more diverse music settings.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713445

Cites

3 of 3 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

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: 44

  1. Amabile T. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
  2. Barrett M. (2006). “Creative collaboration”: an “eminence” study of teaching and learning in music composition. Psychol. Music 34, 195– 218. 10.1177/0305735606061852 · DOI
  3. Barrett M. S. Gromko J. E. (2007). Provoking the muse: a case study of teaching and learning in music composition. Psychol. Music 35, 213– 230. 10.1177/0305735607070305 · DOI
  4. Bayley A. Lizée N. (2016). Creativity layers and continuities: a case study of Nicole Lizée and the Kronos Quartet. Music. Sci. 20, 393– 412. 10.1177/1029864916631917 · DOI
  5. Becker H. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  6. Biasutti M. (2015). Creativity in virtual spaces: communication modes employed during collaborative online music composition. Think. Skills Creat. 17, 117– 129. 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.06.002 · DOI
  7. Biasutti M. (2018). Strategies adopted during collaborative online music composition. Int. J. Music Educ. 36, 473– 490. 10.1177/0255761417741520 · DOI
  8. Blom D. (2012). Inside the collaborative inter-arts improvisatory process: tertiary music students' perspectives. Psychol. Music 40, 720– 737. 10.1177/0305735611401127 · DOI
  9. Brinck L. (2017). Jamming and learning: analysing changing collective practice of changing participation. Music Educ. Res. 19, 214– 225. 10.1080/14613808.2016.1257592 · DOI
  10. Cole M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  11. de Bruin L. R. (2016). Journeys in jazz education: learning, collaboration, and dialogue in communities of musical practice. Int. J. Community Music 9, 307– 325. 10.1386/ijcm.9.3.307_1 · DOI
  12. de Bruin L. R. (2019). Improvising musicians' self-regulation and distributed creativities: a phenomenological investigation. Think. Skills Creat. 32, 30– 41. 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.03.004 · DOI
  13. de Bruin L. R. Williamson P. Wilson E. (2019). Apprenticing the jazz performer through ensemble collaboration: a qualitative enquiry. Int. J. Music Educ. 38, 208– 225. 10.1177/0255761419887209 · DOI
  14. Delalande F. (2016). Postscript: music composition, creativity, and collaboration–an old story, only recently told. Music Sci. 20, 457– 461. 10.1177/1029864916646719 · DOI
  15. Dobson E. Littleton K. (2016). Digital technologies and the mediation of undergraduate students' collaborative music compositional practices. Learn. Media Technol. 41, 330– 350. 10.1080/17439884.2015.1047850 · DOI
  16. Ericsson K. A. (2014). Why expert performance is special and cannot be extrapolated from studies of performance in the general population: a response to criticisms. Intelligence 45, 81– 103. 10.1016/j.intell.2013.12.001 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Freeman J. Godfrey M. (2010). Creative collaboration between audiences and musicians in Flock. Digit. Creat. 21, 85– 99. 10.1080/14626261003786244 · DOI
  18. Freeman J. Van Troyer A. (2011). Collaborative textual improvisation in a laptop ensemble. Comput. Music J. 35, 8– 21. 10.1162/COMJ_a_00053 · DOI
  19. Glaveanu V. P. (2010a). Paradigms in the study of creativity: introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas Psychol. 28, 79– 93. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007 · DOI
  20. Glaveanu V. P. (2010b). Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Cult. Psychol. 16, 147– 163. 10.1177/1354067X10361394 · DOI
  21. Glaveanu V. P. Gillespie A. Valsiner J. (eds.). (2014). Rethinking Creativity: Contributions From Social and Cultural Psychology. Hove/New York, NY: Routledge.
  22. Hill B. Fitzgerald J. (2012). Human machine music: an analysis of creative practices among Australian live electronica musicians. Perfect Beat 13, 161– 180. 10.1558/prbt.v13i2.161 · DOI
  23. Hill M. Hill B. Walsh R. (2018). Conflict in collaborative musical composition: a case study. Psychol. Music 46, 192– 207. 10.1177/0305735617704712 · DOI
  24. John-Steiner V. (2000). Creative Collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  25. Kenny A. (2014). Collaborative creativity within a jazz ensemble as a musical and social practice. Think. Skills Creat. 13, 1– 8. 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.002 · DOI
  26. Khodyakov D. M. (2007). The complexity of trust-control relationships in creative organizations: insights from a qualitative analysis of a conductorless orchestra. Soc. Forces 86, 1– 22. 10.1353/sof.2007.0100 · DOI
  27. Lincoln Y. Guba E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  28. MacDonald R. Miell D. Wilson G. (2005). Talking about music: a vehicle for identity development, in Musical Communication, eds Miell D. MacDonald R. Hargreaves D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 321– 338.
  29. MacDonald R. A. R. Wilson G. B. (2006). Constructions of jazz: how jazz musicians present their collaborative musical practice. Music. Sci. 10, 59– 83. 10.1177/102986490601000104 · DOI
  30. Marchini M. Ramirez R. Papiotis P. Maestre E. (2014). The sense of ensemble: a machine learning approach to expressive performance modelling in string quartets. J. New Music Res. 43, 303– 317. 10.1080/09298215.2014.922999 · DOI
  31. Moher D. Liberati A. Tetzlaff J. Altman D. G. PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. (2009) 6:e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 19621072 PMC2707599 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Morgan E. Gunes H. Bryan-Kinns N. (2015). Using affective and behavioural sensors to explore aspects of collaborative music making. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 82, 31– 47. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.002 · DOI
  33. Mumford M. D. (ed.). (2012). Handbook of Organizational Creativity. Dan Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  34. Paulus P. B. Nijstad B. A. (eds.). (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  35. Ravet P. (2016). Negotiated authority, shared creativity: cooperation models among conductors and performers. Music. Sci. 20, 287– 303. 10.1177/1029864915617232 · DOI
  36. Sawyer R. K. (2017). Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration (Revised Edition). New York, NY: Basic Books.
  37. Seddon F. A. (2005). Modes of communication during jazz improvisation. Br. J. Music Educ. 22, 47– 61. 10.1017/S0265051704005984 · DOI
  38. Tan L. Tjoeng J. Sin H. X. (2020). “Ngeli”: flowing together in a Gamelan ensemble. Psychol. Music 49, 804– 816. 10.1177/0305735620909482 · DOI
  39. van Nort D. (2018). Conducting the in-between: improvisation and intersubjective engagement in soundpainted electro-acoustic ensemble performance. Digit. Creat. 29, 68– 81. 10.1080/14626268.2018.1423997 · DOI
  40. Virkkula E. (2016). Communities of practice in the conservatory: learning with a professional musician. Br. J. Music Educ. 33, 27– 42. 10.1017/S026505171500011X · DOI
  41. Vygotsky L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  42. Vygotsky L. (1986). Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  43. Wilson G. B. MacDonald R. A. R. (2012). The sign of silence: negotiating musical identities in an improvising ensemble. Psychol. Music 40, 558– 573. 10.1177/0305735612449506 · DOI
  44. Wilson G. B. MacDonald R. A. R. (2017). The construction of meaning within free improvising groups: a qualitative psychological investigation. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 11, 136– 146. 10.1037/aca0000075 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barrett, M. S., Creech, A., & Zhukov, K.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Barrett, Margaret S.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2021-08-09
Volume
12
Pages
713445-713445
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3188645211
Cited by
91
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5
FWCI
28.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Music › Diverse Music Education Insights
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Artistic and Creative Research
Keywords
co-creation, collaborative creativity, music composition, musical improvisation, music performance, distributed creativity, embodied action, audience, music education

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