The Interactive Dimension of Creating Cultural Artifacts Using Agile Methodologies

• Authors: Rafał Wiśniewski , Izabela Bukalska
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The authors consider symbolic interactionism to be a suitable theoretical framework to analyze projects in creative sectors because it affords ample space for individual and collective creativity. Furthermore, teams working on different cultural artifacts establish a negotiated order (interactionist term coined by A. L. Strauss) among artists, managers, the audience, and sponsors, et cetera, by discussing and translating various meanings and perspectives. This is especially noticeable when projects are managed using an agile methodology. The application of agile methodologies in creative sectors is a relatively new idea, although it seems to be in harmony with the nature of artistic work. For instance, it implies the acceptance of unpredictability and flexibility while also recognizing the ability and individuality of project participants. There are also specific problems related to the personalities of the artists and the irregularities and discontinuities inherent in the process of creation. The first part of the article raises the topic of creativity in symbolic interactionism. This perspective is subsequently extended to teamwork in creative sectors employing the description of collective work in Howard Becker’s book entitled Art Worlds as an example. The authors reflect on other contemporary works explaining the cultural shift transpiring during the move from the analog age to the current digital age and its influence on the process of creation in the world of artists. This leads to a discussion of distributed agility, a concept stemming from agile management. The various agile methods are mentioned and shortly characterized; we also present a succinct depiction of historical perspective. The literature on the use of agile methods in creative sectors is referred to along with some of the challenges they face. The need to develop an agile management methodology specifically for creative industries is emphasized. This article utilizes the literature on symbolic interactionism to explain group dynamics by drawing analogies with agile management.

Keywords

EN

Symbolic Interactionism; Creative Sectors; Creativity; Agile Methodologies

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Qualitative Sociology Review
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 198-210

Dates

published

2020-10-31

Contributors

author

Rafał Wiśniewski

• National Centre for Culture / Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7952-8021

author

Izabela Bukalska

• Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7930-1700

References

• Angeuelov, Kiril. 2019. “Research for Usefulness of Agile Methods in Creative Business.” Conference Paper 2019 published in: International Conference on Creative Business for Smart and Sustainable Growth (CREBUS). Sandanski, Bulgaria: IEEE.
• Ashmore, Sondra and Kristin Runyan. 2015. Introduction to Agile Methods. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison.
• Beck, Kent et al. 2001. “Manifesto for Agile Software Development.” Agile Alliance. Retrieved October 04, 2020 ( http://agilemanifesto.org/ ).
• Becker. Howard S. 1984. Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Becker, Howard S. and Robert A. Faulkner. 2009. “Do You Know...?”: The Jazz Repertoire in Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Becker, Howard S. et al. 2006. Shedding Culture. Art from Start to Finish. Jazz, Painting, Writing and Other Improvisations. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
• Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Carew, Peter J. and David Glynn. 2017 “Anti-Patterns in Agile Adoption: A Grounded Theory Case Study of One Irish IT Organisation.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 18(4):275-289
• Chapman, Judith G. and Maureen H. Carrigan. 1993. “Public Self-Attention and Personal Standards: The Impact of Group Composition.” Current Psychology 12:216-229.
• Convertino, Gregorio and Nancy Frishberg. 2017. “Why Agile Teams Fail without UX Research.” Communications of the ACM 60(9):35-37.
• Cropley, Arthur J. 2011. “Definitions of Creativity.” Pp. 511-524 in Encyclopedia of Creativity, edited by M. A. Runco and S. R. Pritzker. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Cyran, Kazimierz and Sławomir Dybka. 2019. “The Influence of Prosumers on the Creation and the Process of Intelligent Products Flow.” Pp. 241-257 in SMART Supply Network, edited by A. Kawa and A. Maryniak. Cham: Springer.
• Dezutter, Stacey. 2011. “Professional Improvisation and Teacher Education.” Pp. 27-50 in Structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching, edited by K. Sawyer. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Glaser, Barney and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing.
• Gorzko, Marek. 2016. “Problem twórczości w generowaniu pojęć wprost z danych w świetle metodologii teorii ugruntowanej [The Issue of Creativity in Generating Concepts Directly from Data in the Light of the Grounded Theory Methodology].” Roczniki Nauk Społecznych 44(4):95-119.
• Harris, Shanelle M. 2019. The Use of a Modified System Development Life Cycle (MSDLC) in a Sociological Environment to Improve Solution Validation. Retrieved October 04, 2020 ( https://mdsoar.org/handle/11603/17664 ).
• Highsmith, Jim. 2004. Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products. Boston: Addison Wesley.
• Hodgson, Damian and Louise Briand. 2013. “Controlling the Uncontrollable: Agile Teams and Illusions of Autonomy in Creative Work.” Work, Employment and Society 27(2):308-325.
• Hormuth, Stefan. 1983. “Self-Awareness and Drive Theory: Comparing Internal Standards and Dominant Responses.” European Journal of Social Psychology 12(1):31-45.
• Hughes, Diane et al. 2016. The New Music Industries: Disruption and Discovery. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
• INTERREG IVC. 2014. Analysis Report. Creative Industries. Retrieved October 04, 2020 ( https://cercles.diba.cat/documents-digitals/pdf/E140303.pdf ).
• Jurney, Russell. 2014. Zwinna analiza danych. Apache Hadoop dla każdego [Agile Data Science: Building Data Analytics Applications with Hadoop]. Gliwice: Helion.
• Katz, Jack. 1994. “Jazz in Social Interaction: Personal Creativity, Collective Constraint, and Motivational Explanation in the Social Thought of Howard S. Becker.” Symbolic Interaction 17(3):253-279.
• Konecki, Krzysztof T. 2018. Advances in Contemplative Social Research. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego / Cracow: Jagiellonian University Press.
• Konecki, Krzysztof T. 2019. “Creative Thinking in Qualitative Research and Analysis.” Qualitative Sociology Review 15(3):6-25.
• Larman, Craig. 2004. Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager’s Guide. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
• McCall, George and J. L. Simmons. 1978. Identities and Interactions. New York: Free Press.
• Mead, George H. 1926. “The Nature of Aesthetic Experience.” International Journal of Ethics 36:382-392.
• Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Morrow, Guy. 2018. “Distributed Agility: Artist Co-Management in the Music Attention Economy.” International Journal of Arts Management 20(3):38-48.
• Papadakis, Emmanouil and Loukas Tsironis. 2018. “Hybrid Methods and Practices Associated with Agile Methods, Method Tailoring and Delivery of Projects in a Non-Software Context.” Procedia Computer Science 138:739-746.
• Paris, Thomas and Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini. 2019. “The Process of Creation in Creative Industries.” Creative Innovation Management 28(3):1-17.
• Paris, Thomas, Gerald Lang, and David Masse. 2020. “Polarized Worlds and Contextual Creativity in Creative Industries: The Case of Creation Processes in the Perfume Industry.” Retrieved October 04, 2020 ( https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02104669.html ).
• Petkus, Ed. 1996. “The Creative Identity: Creative Behavior from the Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.” Journal of Creative Behaviour 30(3):188-196.
• Ramesh, Balasubramaniam et al. 2017. “Conflicts and Complements between Eastern Cultures and Agile Methods: An Empirical Investigation.” European Journal of Information Systems 26(2):206-235.
• Reckwitz, Andreas. 2012. Odkrycie kreatywności [The Invention of Creativity]. Warsaw: Narodowe Centrum Kultury.
• Sawyer, R. Keith. 2003. Group Creativity: Music, Theater, Collaboration. New York, London: Routledge.
• Simon, Herbert. 1971. “Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World.” Pp. 38-72 in Computer, Communications, and the Public Interest, edited by M. Greenberger. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
• Strauss, Anselm L. 1963. “The Hospital and Its Negotiated Order.” Pp. 147-169 in The Hospital in Modern Society, edited by E. Freidson. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
• Ślęzak, Izabela. 2009. “Stawanie się poetą. Analiza interakcjonistyczno–symboliczna [Becoming a Poet. Interactionist-Symbolic Analysis].” Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej 5(1).
• Thibeault, Bernie. 2018. “A Complete Guide to Microsoft’s Digital Feedback Loop.” Retrieved October 04, 2020 ( https://www.aerieconsulting.com/blog/microsofts-digital-feedback-loop ).
• Turner, Ralph. 1990. “Role Change.” Annual Review of Sociology (16):87-110.
• Vannini, Philipp and Waskul Dennis. 2006. “Symbolic Interaction as Music: The Esthetic Constitution of Meaning, Self, and Society.” Symbolic Interaction 29(1):5-18.
• Wiśniewski, Rafał and Tomasz Kukołowicz. 2017. “Pięć kierunków poszerzania pola kultury, czyli uwagi o współczesnej polityce kulturalnej [Five Directions of Expanding the Field of Culture-Comments on Contemporary Cultural Policy].” In Pomorskie poszerzenie pola kultury: dylematy – konteksty – działania [Pomeranian Expansion of the Field of Culture: Dilemmas-Contexts-Actions], edited by C. Obracht-Prondzyński and P. Zbieranek. Gdansk: Nadbałtyckie Centrum Kultury, Pomorskie Centrum Badań nad Kulturą UG.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1733-8077.16.4.12