Social and Political Sciences

Social and Political Sciences. What is the innovator remembered for? In what field is his or her contribution recognized? Each member of the group should answer these questions together, and then focus on a different aspect of how that person’s reputation is constructed and passed down to us. You can focus on a specific “product” or “innovation”. You can focus on subsequent applications of the person’s innovation. Or on
how the innovator is represented over time; how others invoke the innovator to legitimize
their own creativity, and so on. You should discuss these issues as a group to make sure
that no project overlaps with the project turned in by others. 
1. Readiness/mindful preparedness rather than inspired insight are one important source of creativity. (Discuss pregame rituals and how he was not talented at first but worked hard, even hanging from a pole to make himself taller, to become great).
2. Reputation is constructed by innovators, and their followers, as they connect with multiple, and potentially divergent, audiences and sets of critics (Talk about his legacy and the weight his name holds in discussing basketball in any regard).
3. Creativity travels along chains of apprenticeship and excellence.
4. While homogeneity facilitates mastery over a domain, difference acts as source of creative inspiration by allowing access to new ideas (Talk about how he was the first international sports superstar to expand himself as a product beyond playing his sport and into the market with his shoe/clothing brand, onto the big screen i.e. Space Jam, etc.).
Garber, Marjorie. 2002. “Our Genius Problem.” Atlantic Monthly Online, December 2002. pp 1-11.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2002. “Group Think.” New Yorker, December 2, 2002. pp 102-107.
Boden, Margaret A. 2009. “Computer Models of Creativity.” AI Magazine 30(3):23.
Seifert, Colleen M., David E. Meyer, Natalie Davidson, Andrea L. Patalano, and Ilan Yaniv.
1994. “Demystification of Cognitive Insight: Opportunistic Assimilation and the Prepared-Mind
Hypothesis.” Pp. 65–85 & 94-119 in The Nature of Insight, edited by R. Sternberg and J.
Davidson. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chambliss, Daniel. 1989. “The Mundanity of Excellence: An Ethnographic Report on
Stratification and Olympic Swimmers.” Sociological Theory 7(1):70–86.
Merton, Robert K. 1968. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science 159(3810):56–63.
Collins, Randall. 2002. “On the Acrimoniousness of Intellectual Disputes.” Common Knowledge

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99