An Embodied, Dialogic Endeavor: Towards a Posthumanizing Approach to Creativity with Dr. Kerry Chappell
“The insufferable arrogance of human beings to think that Nature was made solely for their benefit, as if it was conceivable that the sun had been set afire merely to ripen men's apples and head their cabbages.” – Cyrano de Bergerac
“A means to enmeshing ethicality within our creative processes and actions is through embodied dialogue as the driver of the creative process.” – Kerry Chappell
In this article series, we have engaged in interviews with creativity scholars, researchers, and thinkers across domains. In seeking to give voice to the diversity of perspectives on creativity, our work has spanned disciplines and viewpoints, from neuroscience to design, or education to business, and more. In this article, we extend that voice to another scholar, Dr. Kerry Chappell, who as part of her own work has also sought to broaden the scope of perspectives and ways that people contribute creatively with her focus on questioning the ethical and posthumanizing elements of creativity.
The Deep-Play Research group is a loose collective of faculty and graduate students at Arizona State University, California State University, and Michigan State University. Participants include: Danah Henriksen, Sarah Keenan-Lechel, Rohit Mehta, Punya Mishra, Carmen Richardson, & Melissa Warr.
- Banaji, S. (2010). The rhetorics of creativity. In I. Eleá, & L. Mikos (Eds.), Young and creative: Digital technologies empowering children in everyday life (pp. 17–30). Göteberg: The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and MediaGoogle Scholar
- Chandra, V. (2014). Geek sublime: The beauty of code, the code of beauty. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press.Google Scholar
- Chappell, K. (2008). Towards humanising creativity? UNESCO Observatory: Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Research in the Arts, 1(3), 1–22.Google Scholar
- Chappell, K. (2018). From wise humanising creativity to (post-humanising) creativity. In A. Harris, P. Thomson, & K. Snepvangers (Eds.), Creativity policy, partnerships and practice in education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (in press).Google Scholar
- Craft, A. (2001). 'Little c creativity'. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in Education (pp. 45–61). London: Continuum. Google Scholar
- Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech. Paris: Unesco Publishing.Google Scholar
- Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2015). We teach who we are. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–46.Google Scholar
- Mehta, R. (2017). What does it mean to be literate? Designing and implementing a framework of inclusive literacy practices in a rural context. Michigan State University.Google Scholar
- Paris, D., & Winn, M. T. (Eds.). (2013). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Razack, N. (2009). Decolonizing the pedagogy and practice of international social work. International Social Work, 52(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872808097748.
- Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Smith, L. T. (2013). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd..Google Scholar