Elsevier

Thinking Skills and Creativity
思维技能与创造力

Volume 34, December 2019, 100608
第 34 卷，2019 年 12 月，100608
Thinking Skills and Creativity

Exploring the creative process in architecture students and professionals
探索建筑学生和专业人士的创意过程

ESI学科分类：一般社会科学JCI 2.00IF(5) 4.1SCI升级版 教育学2区SSCI Q1IF 3.5CUG 教育研究T2SDUFE A2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100608 Get rights and content 获取权利和内容

Highlights 高光内容

  • •
    The tacit nature of the creative process in architecture is elicited through interviews.
    建筑创作过程的隐性本质通过访谈得以揭示。
  • •
    Preparation, Ideation and Evaluation are the three stages of the creative process in architecture.
    准备、构思和评估是建筑创作过程中的三个阶段。
  • •
    Facilitating and inhibiting factors in each of the stages are identified.
    各阶段中的促进和阻碍因素均被识别。

Abstract 摘要

Although the creative process has been the subject of many studies, there is no consensus on its stages or its facilitating and inhibiting factors because the research has been carried out in very different disciplinary fields. Therefore, the main purpose of this article is to research the creative process in architecture students and professionals. We used the Grounded Theory methodology and the study was carried out in Catalonia (Spain). We conducted 28 in-depth interviews with 16 architecture professionals, 8 students and 4 university lecturers who all defined themselves as creative. From the information obtained in the interviews we identified the main facilitating and inhibiting factors in the three stages of the creative process: Preparation, Ideation, and Verification & Evaluation. The conceptualisation of the three basic stages of the creative process in architecture gives us a new vision for understanding how architecture students and architects are involved in the creative process to produce different creative results. Finally, the research reveals different theoretical and practical implications for the academic and professional fields of architecture.
尽管创造性过程一直是许多研究的主题，但由于研究是在非常不同的学科领域进行的，因此对其阶段或促进和阻碍因素没有共识。因此，本文的主要目的是研究建筑学生和专业人士的创造性过程。我们采用了扎根理论方法，并在西班牙的加泰罗尼亚地区进行了研究。我们进行了 28 次深入访谈，访谈对象包括 16 位自认为是富有创造力的建筑师、8 位学生和 4 位大学教授。从访谈中获得的信息中，我们确定了创造性过程的三个阶段（准备、构思和验证与评估）的主要促进和阻碍因素。对建筑创造性过程的三个基本阶段的构想为我们理解建筑学生和建筑师如何参与创造性过程以产生不同的创造性成果提供了新的视角。最后，这项研究揭示了建筑学术和职业领域的不同理论和方法论意义。

Keywords 关键词

Creativity
Creative process
Architecture
Training
Higher studies education

创意 创造过程 建筑 培训 高等教育

1. Introduction and background
1. 引言及背景

Creativity is one of the key skills to learn in order to tackle effectively the increasing complexity of daily issues and workplaces in the 21st century (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2014). Therefore, it is not surprising that many international organizations as the OECD through the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) and the Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE) have focused on creativity as a priority in training (Collard & Looney, 2014). Creativity, according to these organizations is (Lucas, Claxton, & Spencer, 2013: 6):
創造力是學習關鍵技能之一，用以有效應對 21 世紀日漸複雜的日常問題和職場環境（21 世紀技能聯盟，2014 年）。因此，並不令人意外，許多國際組織，如經濟合作與發展組織（OECD）透過教育研究與創新中心（CERI）以及創意、文化和教育（CCE）將創造力作為培訓的重點（柯拉德與盧尼，2014 年）。根據這些組織的觀點，創造力是（盧卡斯、克拉克遜、斯潘塞，2013 年：第 6 頁）：
“Complex and multi-faceted, occurring in all domains of life (Treffinger, Young, Selby, & Shepardson, 2002), learnable (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996), core to what it is to be successful today (Sternberg, 1996), capable of being analysed at an individual level in terms of dispositions (Guilford, 1950); and strongly influenced by context and by social factors (Lave & Wenger, 1991)”
“复杂而多面，存在于生活的各个领域（Treffinger, Young, Selby, & Shepardson, 2002），可学习的（Csikszentmihalyi, 1996），是当今成功的关键（Sternberg, 1996），可以从个人层面的倾向性进行分析（Guilford, 1950）；并且受到环境和社交因素的影响很大（Lave & Wenger, 1991）。”
Moreover, Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford (2007) highlights that creativity develops in minds that have been nourished by varied and rich experiences, that explore different perspectives of reality, and that are interested in multiple and different knowledge. Creativity also is defined as the result of the interaction between aptitude, process and the environment through which an individual or group produces a new and useful product within a certain social context (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004). From this contextual view, creativity is not simply the production of an idea, rather, it is defined as the production of a solution of high quality (value), potentially useful (Pope, 2005), adequate and significant (Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
此外，亨特、贝德尔和姆福德（2007 年）强调，创造力是在经历了丰富多样的经验、探索现实的不同视角以及对多种不同知识感兴趣的大脑中发展起来的。创造力也被定义为能力、过程和环境的相互作用的结果，通过这种相互作用，个人或团体在特定的社会环境中创造出新颖且有用的产品（普卢克、贝格赫托和道，2004 年）。从这种情境观来看，创造力不仅仅是产生一个想法，而是定义为产生一个高质量（价值）、可能有用（波普，2005 年）、适当且重要的解决方案（阿米巴勒，1996 年；齐克森米哈伊，1996 年）。
Contrarily to this utilitarian and more contextual and inclusive view of creativity, Hammershoj (2014) states that there is a difference between the product of problem solving, which refers to a specific solution to a particular problem, and the product of creativity, which has a relevance and value in itself that goes further than a particular problem. Hence, there are different views on creativity. Likewise, there are also different approaches to measure creativity (Sternberg, 2006). Usually, creativity has been observed and measured in terms of people, processes, products or press (relationship between human beings and their environment), as the four p’s of creativity (Lassig, 2013; Rhodes, 1961).
与这种功利主义、更具有情境性和包容性的创造力观相反，Hammershoj（2014）指出，解决问题产生的产品与创造力产生的产品之间存在区别，前者指的是针对特定问题的具体解决方案，而后者本身具有相关性和价值，超越了特定问题。因此，关于创造力的观点也不尽相同。同样，衡量创造力的方法也有多种（Sternberg，2006）。通常，创造力是通过观察和衡量人们、过程、产品或压力（人与环境之间的关系）来进行的，这被称为创造力的“四个 P”（Lassig，2013；Rhodes，1961）。
In this article we focus on the perceptions of the creative process in architecture by architects, architecture students and lecturers. Given the impact it has on creative results, other authors have also focused on the creative process (Amabile, 1996; Botella, Zenasni, & Lubart, 2018; Lubart, 2001). The creative process is defined as a succession of thoughts and actions leading to original and appropriate productions (Lubart, 2001). In the model of creative thinking, the problem sensitivity (Guilford, 1956) or “sensing gaps” (Torrance, 1962) is the key, because the problem construction or problem definition represents a number of cognitive processes that play a role in creative thought (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994). .
在这篇文章中，我们关注建筑师、建筑系学生和讲师对建筑创作过程的认知。鉴于其对创作成果的影响，其他作者也关注了创作过程（Amabile，1996；Botella，Zenasni 和 Lubart，2018；Lubart，2001）。创作过程被定义为一系列思想和行动的连续，最终产生原创且恰当的作品（Lubart，2001）。在创造性思维模型中，问题敏感性（Guilford，1956）或“感知差距”（Torrance，1962）是关键，因为问题构建或问题定义代表了一系列在创造性思维中起作用的认知过程（Mumford，Reiter-Palmon 和 Redmond，1994）。
In fact, the creative process lies in the moment when the professional takes from the available elements not only those related to their academic training, but also those related to their personal development in an interaction with the environment (Soriano de Alencar, 2012). Our research is based on this assumption. However, it should be noted, as Botella et al. (2018) shows, that there are various diverse models of the creative process and this process has a long history of being divided into stages. For example, Lassig (2013) structures the creative process in adolescents in four stages: adaptation, transfer, synthesis and genesis. Sadler-Smith (2016) specifies five stages: preparation, incubation, intimation, insight and verification. Botella, Zenasni, and Lubart (2011) define nine stages in their study: preparation, concentration, incubation, ideation, insight, verification, planning, production and validation. Hence, we face not only a lack of agreement in the literature on the number of stages of the creative process but also on the terms used to refer to them.
实际上，创意过程在于专业人士从现有元素中汲取的不仅仅是与他们的学术训练相关的元素，还包括在与环境的互动中个人发展的元素（Soriano de Alencar，2012）。我们的研究基于这一假设。然而，正如 Botella 等人（2018）所展示的，创意过程存在各种不同的模型，并且这一过程长期以来一直被划分为不同的阶段。例如，Lassig（2013）将青少年的创意过程划分为四个阶段：适应、转移、综合和起源。Sadler-Smith（2016）将其具体化为五个阶段：准备、酝酿、启示、顿悟和验证。Botella、Zenasni 和 Lubart（2011）在其研究中定义了九个阶段：准备、集中、酝酿、构思、顿悟、验证、规划、生产和验证。因此，我们不仅面临关于创意过程阶段数量的文献中缺乏一致性的问题，还面临用于指代这些阶段的术语不一致的问题。
The Spanish National Agency for the Evaluation of Quality and Accreditation, ANECA (2005) specifies that the main purpose of architectural training is to produce competent, “creative”, critical and ethical professionals that contribute to the social, economic and cultural development of society at the national and transnational levels. The architectural discipline has been recognized in the literature as an appropriate profession for exploring the creative learning process, since architects represent the prototype of a creative person (MacKinnon, 1965). Along the same lines, Cohen, Wilkinson, Arnold, and Finn (2005) argue that architecture, due to its organizational diversity and its role in the construction industry, and even its vulnerability to changes in the political, economic and social climate, is a very appropriate research object for studying the role of creativity in training processes. According to Hosseini (2011) and Onsman (2016), during the institutional stage of learning, meaningful pedagogy requires that students are made aware of the elements of the conception/realization process that will become the cornerstone of their professional practice. However, as yet these elements of the creative process have not been explored sufficiently in previous studies. Therefore, given the importance of training in creativity and the creative process, we cannot assume that the findings in previous research (e.g. Botella et al., 2018; Hosseini, 2011; Onsman, 2016) can be generalized to architecture students and professionals. There is also a lack of consensus in the literature on the common stages of the creative process in different areas. The educational context is relevant in the creative process, and therefore, the university context is relevant. Furthermore, universities are under increasing pressure to offer innovative programs (Albers-Miller, Straughan, & Prenshaw, 2001). In fact, although architecture students and professionals are an important population, they are often neglected in research into creativity and, consequently, this is the reason for selecting them in this study. Specifically, we focus on exploring how architecture students and professionals engage in the creative process and determine the aspects that they perceive as facilitators or inhibitors of the creative process.
西班牙国家质量评估与认证机构（ANECA，2005 年）规定，建筑培训的主要目的是培养具有“创造性”、批判性和道德素养的专业人才，他们能够为国家及跨国层面的社会、经济和文化发展做出贡献。在文献中，建筑学科已被认为是一个适合探索创造性学习过程的职业，因为建筑师是创造性人物的典型代表（MacKinnon，1965 年）。沿着同样的思路，Cohen、Wilkinson、Arnold 和 Finn（2005 年）认为，由于建筑的组织多样性、在建筑行业中的作用，以及其易受政治、经济和社会气候变化的脆弱性，建筑是一个非常适合研究培训过程中创造力角色的研究对象。根据 Hosseini（2011 年）和 Onsman（2016 年）的观点，在学习机构的阶段，有意义的教学法要求学生了解将成为他们专业实践基石的构思/实现过程的要素。 然而，在以往的研究中，这些创造性过程要素尚未得到充分探索。因此，鉴于训练在创造力和创造性过程中的重要性，我们不能假设先前研究（例如 Botella 等人，2018 年；Hosseini，2011 年；Onsman，2016 年）的发现可以推广到建筑学生和专业人员。文献中关于不同领域创造性过程共同阶段的共识也存在不足。教育背景与创造性过程相关，因此，大学背景也具有重要意义。此外，大学面临着提供创新项目的日益增加的压力（Albers-Miller，Straughan，& Prenshaw，2001 年）。事实上，尽管建筑学生和专业人员是一个重要的群体，但他们往往在创造性研究中被忽视，这也是选择他们作为本研究对象的原因。具体而言，我们关注探索建筑学生和专业人员如何参与创造性过程，以及他们认为哪些因素是创造性过程的促进因素或阻碍因素。
First, the article discusses the terms creativity and creative process in the field of architecture in Catalonia. Secondly, the methodology and research process are detailed. The findings are then specified, and the results are divided into three subsections corresponding to the three stage categories that emerged from the analysis and were validated in the literature. These categories reflect the possibilities and limitations of professionals and students in the creative processes in which they are involved. Finally, the main findings are discussed and the article’s contribution and future lines of research are outlined.
首先，文章讨论了在加泰罗尼亚建筑领域中的创造力和创造性过程。其次，详细阐述了研究方法和研究过程。随后，具体说明了研究结果，并将结果分为三个子部分，对应于从分析中出现的三个阶段类别，这些类别在文献中得到验证。这些类别反映了专业人士和学生在他们参与的创造性过程中的可能性和局限性。最后，讨论了主要发现，并概述了文章的贡献和未来的研究方向。

1.1. Creativity and the creative process in the architectural practice
1.1. 建筑实践中创造性与创意过程

Architectural practice entails multiple and conflicting demands (Cohen et al., 2005) among which is creativity as an essential component as it is in any design discipline (Durmus & Oymen, 2011). Lewis (2001) points out that the real creative challenge in architecture is to fulfil both functional and aesthetic objectives simultaneously. This challenge can be achieved through training, since creativity is learned and can be trained (Pinnington & Morris, 2002; Simonton, 2000). In this sense, Lewis (2001) points out that some architects fail because they lack creativity, imagination or visual sensitivity. As Durmus and Oymen (2011) specify, creativity is significant in the theory, practice and criticism of architecture, and is the subject of many ongoing discussions in architectural education. For instance, Onsman (2016) criticised the increasing emphasis in architectural education on developing more technical and functional competences instead of the creative competence and highlighted that all, technical experience and skills as well as creative competence are required in the architecture field.
建筑实践包含多种相互冲突的要求（Cohen 等人，2005 年），其中之一就是创造力，它是任何设计学科不可或缺的组成部分（Durmus 和 Oymen，2011 年）。Lewis（2001 年）指出，在建筑领域，真正的创造性挑战在于同时满足功能和美学目标。这一挑战可以通过培训来实现，因为创造力是可以学习和培养的（Pinnington 和 Morris，2002 年；Simonton，2000 年）。从这个意义上说，Lewis（2001 年）指出，一些建筑师之所以失败，是因为他们缺乏创造力、想象力或视觉敏感性。正如 Durmus 和 Oymen（2011 年）所强调的，创造力在建筑理论、实践和批评中具有重要意义，并且是建筑教育中许多持续讨论的主题。例如，Onsman（2016 年）批评了建筑教育中越来越重视发展技术能力和功能性能力，而不是创造性能力，并强调在建筑领域，所有技术经验、技能以及创造性能力都是必需的。
Once the training stage is over, other contradictory demands are faced by architects (Lewis, 2001) who frequently perceive a conflict between creativity and the bureaucracy and lack of management flexibility (Emmitt, 1999). Blau (1984) stated that architects’ intentions are frustrated by many varied restrictions: clients, the market and the management of the architectural practice. The demands of the organization, and the strategic objectives of the market or management reduce creativity.
一旦培训阶段结束，建筑师（Lewis，2001）将面临其他矛盾的要求，他们经常感觉到创造性与官僚主义以及管理缺乏灵活性之间存在冲突（Emmitt，1999）。Blau（1984）指出，建筑师的目标因许多不同的限制而受挫：客户、市场和建筑实践的管理。组织的需求、市场的战略目标或管理的战略目标降低了创造力。
Likewise, the creative process depends on both cognitive development, gained through academic training, and on personal development (Demirkan & Afacan, 2012). The change towards a creative process is based on a democratic and professional change. This requires active participation in a dialogic communicative environment, where daily conversations also have a creative connotation (Chapell & Craft, 2011).
同样，创造性过程既依赖于通过学术训练获得的认识发展，也依赖于个人发展（Demirkan & Afacan，2012）。向创造性过程的转变基于民主和专业性的变革。这需要积极参与到对话式的沟通环境中，日常对话也具有创造性含义（Chapell & Craft，2011）。

1.2. Research context: the architecture profession and degree in Catalonia
1.2. 研究背景：加泰罗尼亚的建筑专业与学位

According to the figures provided by the report by the High Council of Spanish Architecture Colleges on the professional situation of architects, the number of architects is increasing in Spain in line with the increasing trend in the rest of Europe. In Spain in 2008, there were 45,000 architects and in 2014, there were 51,700 (Architects’ Council of Europe, 2014).
根据西班牙建筑学院高等委员会提供的报告，关于建筑师的专业状况，西班牙的建筑师人数与欧洲其他地区的增长趋势一致正在增加。在 2008 年，西班牙有 45,000 名建筑师，到 2014 年增至 51,700 名（欧洲建筑师理事会，2014 年）。
Our research was carried out in the Catalonia region (Spain). Currently, there are five universities that offer the degree in architecture. Three are public universities and two are private. Following an intentional intensive sampling criterion (Patton, 1990) based on examining the architecture degree programmes of the five universities, we chose the three public universities to conduct this study. The main reason was that we found creativity was not as considered in the degree programmes of the public universities in comparison with the private ones. The latter put a greater emphasis on creativity in their degree programmes, not only recognising the creative competence in their programmes but also allocating awards of creativity. Therefore, we decide to intentionally sample the public universities to explore if the creative process and creative competences existed among their students despite not being formally considered in the degree programmes. Thus, assuming that if creativity processes and competences existed when not being recognised, they would be more dominant when being formally recognised under an intensive sampling criterion (Patton, 1990). Although some courses in the public universities emphasise the creative competence, as for instance in 'projects' in which, for example, the University Rovira i Virgili (URV) states the objective 'To develop the analytical, creative and critical spirit when defining and carrying out a project’ (URV, 2019), the consideration of creativity is greater in the private universities.
我们的研究是在西班牙的加泰罗尼亚地区进行的。目前，该地区有五所大学提供建筑学位。其中三所是公立大学，两所是私立大学。根据帕顿（Patton，1990）提出的故意密集抽样标准，我们通过考察五所大学的建筑学位课程，选择了三所公立大学进行研究。主要原因是我们发现，与私立大学相比，公立大学的学位课程对创造力的考虑程度较低。后者在其学位课程中更加重视创造力，不仅认可其课程中的创造性能力，还设立了创造力奖项。因此，我们决定故意选择公立大学，以探究尽管在学位课程中未正式考虑，但学生的创造性过程和创造性能力是否存在。因此，我们假设，如果在不被认可的情况下存在创造力和能力，那么在正式认可的情况下，它们会更为突出，这符合帕顿（Patton，1990）的密集抽样标准。 尽管公立大学中的一些课程强调创造性能力，例如在“项目”中，比如罗维拉·伊·弗吉里大学（URV）提出的“在定义和执行项目时，培养分析、创造和批判精神”的目标（URV，2019 年），但在私立大学中，对创造性的考虑更为重视。

2. Methodology 2. 研究方法

We chose to apply the Grounded Theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and in particular the Straussian version (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Suddaby (2006) states that the Grounded Theory methodology is especially appropriate when we want to know how people interpret their reality. This aspect is particularly relevant for the purpose of this research, since it is about understanding how architecture students and professionals perceive and interpret their creative process in order to develop the theory of the creative process in this particular field. This methodology is also considered especially appropriate for developing theory about a process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), and that was exactly our aim with regards to the creative process in architecture.
我们选择了应用扎根理论方法（Glaser & Strauss，1967），特别是斯特劳斯版本（Strauss & Corbin，1998）。Suddaby（2006）指出，扎根理论方法特别适用于我们想要了解人们如何诠释他们的现实时。这一方面对于本研究的目的尤其相关，因为本研究旨在理解建筑学学生和专业人士如何感知和诠释他们的创作过程，以便在这一特定领域发展创作过程理论。这种方法也被认为特别适用于发展关于过程的理论（Glaser & Strauss，1967），这正是我们关于建筑创作过程的目标。

2.1. Sampling and participants
2.1. 样本与参与者

The study involved a total of twenty-eight people, including professionals, lecturers and students in the architecture field. In particular, the sample consisted of 12 junior architects, four senior architects, four lecturers and eight students.
该研究涉及总共二十八人，包括建筑领域的专业人士、讲师和学生。具体来说，样本包括 12 名初级建筑师、4 名高级建筑师、4 名讲师和 8 名学生。
The initial sampling criterion was that the individuals defined themselves as creative or that they were identified by someone else as such. The factor “experience” emerged from the constant comparative data analysis as a criterion of the theoretical sampling. It was observed that this factor could influence the perception and construction of the creative process. Therefore, 12 architects were recruited with between two and five years of experience, who had recently completed their studies and who could therefore contrast their perception of the creative process with the knowledge acquired in their university education. To contrast and corroborate this perspective, interviews were conducted with four senior architects with more than 15 years working experience as architects.
初始抽样标准是个人自我定义为创意人士，或者被他人认定为创意人士。在常量比较数据分析中，“经验”因素作为理论抽样标准浮现出来。观察到这个因素可能会影响对创意过程的认知和构建。因此，招募了 12 位具有 2 至 5 年经验、近期完成学业并能够将他们对创意过程的认知与在大学教育中获得的知识进行对比的建筑师。为了对比和证实这一观点，还采访了四位拥有超过 15 年建筑师工作经验的高级建筑师。
In the educational context, interviews were held with eight students from the three public universities from the two final years of the architecture degree, since they have a greater perspective of the university degree. In order to contrast their perception of the creative process, interviews were also held with four university lecturers from two public universities in Catalonia and who teach in the Higher Degree in Architecture with different years of experience in facilitating the creative process. All of them are linked to the subject of projects and are tutors of final degree projects.
在教育背景下，对来自两所公立大学建筑学学位最后两年的八名学生进行了访谈，因为他们对大学学位有更广阔的视角。为了对比他们对创意过程的看法，还与来自加泰罗尼亚两所公立大学的四位大学讲师进行了访谈，这些讲师在建筑学高级学位中教授创意过程，具有不同年份的促进创意过程的经验。他们都与项目主题相关，并担任毕业设计导师。
The snowball technique was used to find the interviewees, as long as they met the theoretical sampling criteria of the study. In order to guarantee their anonymity, the names are pseudonyms. The participants' profiles are outlined in the table below (Table 1):
雪花法被用于寻找受访者，只要他们符合研究的理论抽样标准。为了保证他们的匿名性，姓名均为化名。参与者的简介如下表所示（表 1）：

Table 1. Summary of the participants’ profiles.
表 1. 参与者概况摘要。

Empty CellName 姓名Code 代码Years of experience 年资Characteristics 特性
Junior Architect 初级建筑师Xavieraj_1 aj_1 aj_15Freelancer 自由职业者
Mar 三月aj_22Currently doing her PhD. 目前正在攻读博士学位。
Ana 安娜aj_3 aj_3 aj_35Freelancer and teaches architecture classes for children.
自由职业者，并为儿童教授建筑课程。
Júlia 朱莉娅aj_4 aj_4 aj_44Freelancer 自由职业者
Borja 博尔哈aj_5 aj_5 aj_55Worked abroad and now he works for the public administration.
在国外工作过，现在他在公共行政部门工作。
Alba 阿尔巴aj_6 aj_6 aj_64Worked abroad for a year and currently works in Catalonia in an architecture firm.
在国外工作了一年，现在在加泰罗尼亚的一家建筑设计公司工作。
Marcel 马塞尔aj_7 aj_7 aj_74Has worked in an architecture firm in Tarragona since he finished his degree.
自他完成学业以来，一直在塔拉戈纳的一家建筑设计公司工作。
Pol "波尔"aj_8 aj_8 aj_85Together with other architects, he has created his own company.
与他一同的其他建筑师，他创立了自己的公司。
Joanaj_9 aj_9 aj_92Works for a public institution as a technician.
他在一家公立机构担任技术员。
Gemmaaj_10 aj_10 aj_102Freelance, she started her first project 4 months ago.
自由职业者，她四个月前开始了她的第一个项目。
Gerard 杰拉德aj_11 aj_11 aj_113Has worked in the same architecture firm since he finished his degree.
自他完成学位以来，一直在同一家建筑设计公司工作。
Paula 保拉aj_12 aj_12 aj_123Works in an architecture firm as a project coordinator.
在建筑设计公司担任项目协调员。
Senior Architect 高级架构师Ander 安德as_1 as_1 作为 125He had his own architecture office for more than 20 years, he closed it in 2009 due to the economic crisis in Spain. Currently, he does specific work as a freelancer and combines it with managing properties.
Pau 保佑as_2 as_2 作为 215Previously he had his own architecture office, and currently he works in a public institution.
Josepas_3 as_3 作为 329He has had his architecture firm for more than 25 years.
他已拥有自己的建筑设计公司超过 25 年。
Dolorsas_4 as_4 作为 423Freelancer. She has worked on relevant constructions in Catalonia.
自由职业者。她在加泰罗尼亚从事过相关建筑工作。
Lecturers 讲师Marc 马克p_1 p_1 p_116University Dean 大学院长
Jordip_2 p_2 p_221Lecturer 讲师
Diego 迪戈p_3 p_3 p_33Lecturer 讲师
Martí 马蒂p_45Lecturer 讲师
Students 学生Nagore 纳戈雷e_1 e_1 e_1Empty Cell5th year student. 五年级学生。
Andreu 安德鲁e_2 e_2 e_25th year student. 五年级学生。
Silviae_3 e_3 e_35th year student. 五年级学生。
Carole_4 e_4 e_44th year student. 四年级学生。
Quim 奇姆e_5 e_5 e_54th year student. 四年级学生。
Clàudia 克劳迪娅e_6 e_6 e_65th year student. 五年级学生。
Arnau 阿诺e_7 e_7 e_75th year student. 五年级学生。
Pere 佩雷e_8 e_8 e_84th year student. 四年级学生。

2.2. Data collection and analysis
2.2. 数据收集与分析

The data was collected through in-depth interviews. Participants were asked to recall specific creative experiences and to reflect on how they had arrived at the result in order to determine a sequence for their creative process. The participants were interviewed at the time and place they chose. The interviews were conducted individually and lasted between 1 h 15 min and 2 h 30 min. The interviews were carried out between December 2017 and November 2018. The person who held the interview also transcribed it to obtain the utmost fidelity.
数据是通过深入访谈收集的。参与者被要求回忆具体的创造性经历，并反思他们是如何达到结果的，以便确定其创造性过程的顺序。访谈是在参与者选择的时间和地点进行的。访谈是单独进行的，时长在 1 小时 15 分钟到 2 小时 30 分钟之间。访谈在 2017 年 12 月至 2018 年 11 月之间进行。进行访谈的人也对访谈进行了转录，以确保最大限度地保持原文的忠实度。
The data were analysed. The data were analysed inductively to create theory about the creative process in architecture students and professionals. As part of this method, we carried out a constant comparative analysis of the data collected, and the analysis phase was alternated with the collection of new data following the basic logic of grounded theory coding (Charmaz, 2006). We also carried out theoretical sampling to contrast the categories that emerged from the initial analysis.
数据已经进行了分析。我们采用归纳法对数据进行分析，以构建关于建筑学生和专业人士的创造性过程的理论。在这一方法中，我们对收集到的数据进行持续比较分析，并在遵循扎根理论编码（Charmaz，2006）的基本逻辑下，将分析阶段与收集新数据的阶段交替进行。我们还进行了理论抽样，以对比从初步分析中出现的类别。
An inductive approach was used at the beginning of the research to generate substantial codes with the data obtained and to mark the starting point of the studied phenomenon (Guillemette, 2006). However, later, we used a deductive approach to look for similarities with the creative process stages previously identified in the literature. We adopted the previously established names for the stages, deductively importing these categories from the literature.
在研究初期，我们采用了归纳方法，通过对获取的数据进行分析，生成大量代码，并标记出所研究现象的起点（Guillemette，2006）。然而，后来我们采用了演绎方法，以寻找与文献中先前确定的创造性过程阶段之间的相似性。我们采用了文献中已确立的阶段名称，将这些类别演绎性地从文献中导入。
The transcripts were analysed in terms of the common ground, i.e. the elements that all the participants shared, to identify the common elements in the creative process. In addition, we identified the specific elements of each interviewee’s story, making a conscious effort to read each reality as new and individual. The Facilitating Factors and Inhibiting Factors were determined and associated with each stage of the creative process, giving rise to the following set of categories.
文本转录分析集中在共同基础之上，即所有参与者所共有的元素，以识别创意过程中的共同要素。此外，我们还确定了每位受访者的故事中的特定元素，有意识地将其视为新的、个体的现实。我们确定了促进因素和阻碍因素，并将它们与创意过程的每个阶段相关联，从而产生了以下一系列类别。

3. Findings 3. 研究发现

All interviewees reported that creativity is very relevant in architecture. Specifically, the architects interviewed perceive that creative work requires experience, and that therefore, experience is necessary to develop this capacity. However, although the participants define themselves as creative people, at the beginning of the interview they were surprised when asked about the creative process concept. Neither the architects nor the students identify that they follow a specific creative process, but when we talked about the development of specific projects we could observe aspects related to the creative process. That is, the creative process for the interviewees is a tacit concept, since they recognize that it is a concept that does not exist in their interactions and they do not know what it refers to. An example is that more than half of the participants asked us during the interview, What is the creative process? As the interview progressed we saw that despite not being conscious of it, the participants clearly identify the different stages of the process. The participants relate the creative process to the search for solutions, which is how they explicitly refer to it in their work. They do not initiate a creative process without first needing to find a solution.
所有受访者都表示，创意在建筑领域非常重要。具体来说，接受采访的建筑师认为，创意工作需要经验，因此，经验是发展这种能力所必需的。然而，尽管参与者自认为是富有创造力的人，但在采访开始时，当被问及创意过程的概念时，他们感到惊讶。建筑师和学生都没有认同他们遵循一个特定的创意过程，但当我们谈论具体项目的开发时，我们可以观察到与创意过程相关的方面。也就是说，对于受访者来说，创意过程是一个默会概念，因为他们认识到它是一个在他们互动中不存在的概念，他们也不知道它指的是什么。例如，超过一半的参与者在我们采访过程中问我们：“什么是创意过程？”随着采访的进行，我们注意到，尽管参与者没有意识到这一点，但他们清楚地识别出过程的各个阶段。 参与者将创意过程与寻找解决方案联系起来，这就是他们在工作中如何明确地提及它。他们不会在没有找到解决方案之前启动创意过程。
Given that our objective was to identify the stages of the creative process and the factors that influence this process in the architecture domain, we structured our results into the three stages categorized previously: orientation/preparation, incubation/ideation and evaluation/validation. In spite of not being concise that the number of stages in the creative process, most theories can be organized in these three great stages (Amabile, 1996; Cropley, 2012; Lassig, 2013; Osborn, 1963; Runco, 1997) categories that agree on the results of our field work. In the following sections we develop this theoretical framework and provide excerpts that illustrate the specific stages of the creative process as well as the inhibiting and facilitating factors in each stage according to the perception of the participants.
鉴于我们的目标是确定创意过程的不同阶段以及影响这一过程在建筑领域的因素，我们将我们的结果结构化为之前提到的三个阶段：定位/准备、酝酿/构思和评估/验证。尽管关于创意过程的阶段数量并不简洁，但大多数理论都可以组织成这三个大的阶段（Amabile，1996；Cropley，2012；Lassig，2013；Osborn，1963；Runco，1997），这些类别与我们田野调查的结果一致。在接下来的章节中，我们将发展这一理论框架，并提供摘录来说明创意过程的特定阶段以及根据参与者的看法，每个阶段中的阻碍和促进因素。

3.1. Preparation 3.1. 准备工作

The creative process starts with preparation, when the individual recognizes and defines the problem or a possible challenge. The interviewees agree that the first stage, orientation and preparation, consists of approaching the subject matter and studying it to learn about it. They identify that it is important to show sensitivity to problems in order to be able to identify them. However, unlike professionals, students find that there is no link between carrying out projects and real social problems. In addition, the students state that in this preparation stage they lack knowledge of the social environment, and this means that they may make inappropriate proposals. Architects, on the other hand, state that when they have a new job they propose a problem to solve, and the solution to this problem comes from knowledge of the environment. They emphasize that as a result of their experience they are much more open to observing the environment, and therefore they take notes of the architectural constructions that can be used as support for a new building. They specify that having a solid base of knowledge facilitates asking questions that promote speculation while arousing curiosity and the possibility to propose new ideas and challenges. The most common example of this among architects is that they face projects as challenges and identify that the creative process begins at this point, Marcel (aj_7) explains: "Yes, yes, in our work there are always problems"
創意過程從準備階段開始，當個體認識並定義問題或可能的挑戰時。受訪者們認為，第一階段，即定向和準備，包括接觸主題並學習相關知識。他們認為，對問題的敏感度是識別問題的重要條件。然而，與專業人士不同，學生們發現，執行項目與實際社會問題之間沒有聯繫。此外，學生們表示，在這個準備階段，他們缺乏對社會環境的認識，這意味著他們可能會提出不恰當的建議。另一方面，建築師們表示，當他們接手新項目時，他們會提出一個需要解決的問題，而這個問題的解決方案來自對環境的認識。他們強調，由於他們的經驗，他們對觀察環境更加開放，因此他們會記錄下可以用作新建築支持的建築結構。 他们指出，拥有扎实的知识基础有助于提出促进思考、激发好奇心以及提出新观点和挑战的问题。在建筑师中，最常见的例子是他们把项目视为挑战，并认为创意过程从这一点开始，Marcel（aj_7）解释道：“是的，是的，在我们的工作中，总是存在问题。”
However, the client can also be seen as a person who can restrict creativity. Pol (aj_8) says that in his work team, before starting they ask themselves, "What does the client need?". In some architecture firms, from the start it is the whole team that evaluates ​​which projects to carry out or the public calls they should present projects to. In other cases, it is one architect or a few who decide. However, in the large majority there is an initial meeting to specify the person who will coordinate the project in question. In addition, before the project proposal is presented to the client, there is a meeting to inform everyone and to look at adapting existing ideas and how to combine new perspectives. In this initial process it is customary to search for inspiration from previous projects, as Xavier (aj_1) points out (see figure 2 quote: 7) that initially it is important to look at things that have already been invented as the aim to adapt with the aim of adapting it to the new needs.
然而，客户也可以被视为一种可能限制创造力的因素。Pol（aj_8）表示，在他的工作团队中，在开始之前，他们会问自己：“客户需要什么？”在一些建筑设计公司，从一开始就是整个团队评估要执行的项目或者应该向其提交项目的公开招标。在其他情况下，是由一位建筑师或少数人做出决定。然而，在大多数情况下，会有一个初步会议来指定负责该项目的协调人。此外，在向客户展示项目提案之前，还会召开一个会议，旨在通知所有人并探讨如何调整现有想法以及如何结合新的视角。正如 Xavier（aj_1）所指出的（见图 2 引言：7），在最初，重要的是要看看已经发明的东西，目的是为了适应，以便将其适应新的需求。
In contrast, one of the biggest problems for students is that the lecturer imposes the solution to be carried out, cancelling out the creative process and the exploration of the problem or need as well as the possible solutions. Júlia (aj_4) remembers her time at university and specifies when one lecturer imposed that some change rooms for a football club had to be rectangular, without letting other students explore further solutions.
与之一比，学生面临的最大问题之一是讲师强加了解决方案，这抹杀了创造性过程，也阻碍了对问题或需求以及可能的解决方案的探索。朱莉娅（aj_4）回忆起她在大学时的经历，并指出有一位讲师强制要求某个足球俱乐部更衣室必须是矩形的，不允许其他学生进一步探索其他解决方案。
It is very present among architects that in this first stage to give the work meaning it is essential to have the project's objectives clear as well as what needs to be achieved. However, the students have more doubts. The results show that, in the first year, they take subjects that push them out of their comfort zone and highlight their imagination based on the detailed study of the natural environment. For example, in one of the universities studied, the lecturers propose that students design a chair adapted to the environment. This happens at the beginning of the degree and the objective of this, according to the lecturers, is that the students relate previous learning and propose a new design. The students emphasize that, in many cases at the beginning, they do not find any meaning in the approach of this activity, and this hinders the course of the creative process.
在建筑师中，大家普遍认为，在第一阶段赋予作品意义时，明确项目目标以及需要实现的内容至关重要。然而，学生们对此却更加疑惑。结果显示，在第一年，学生们会学习一些能让他们跳出舒适区、基于对自然环境详细研究而激发想象力的课程。例如，在所研究的某所大学中，讲师们建议学生们设计一把适应环境的椅子。这发生在学位课程开始时，据讲师们所说，这样做的目的是让学生将先前所学与新的设计联系起来。学生们强调，在许多情况下，一开始他们并不觉得这种活动有任何意义，这阻碍了创作过程的发展。

3.2. Ideation 3.2. 思想构思

The second stage, ideation, is when idea associations take place at a subconscious level, that is, when they are activated and generate further ideas, coming from previous thought processes, acquired in the previous phase. The interviewees in their arguments do not use the term illumination, they refer to definitions such as Ana's (aj_3): "Ideas come alone when you are walking down the street".
第二阶段是创意阶段，此时想法的关联发生在潜意识层面，也就是说，当它们被激活并产生进一步的想法时，这些想法来源于之前的思想过程，这些过程是在前一阶段获得的。受访者们在他们的论点中并没有使用“灵感”这个术语，他们引用了如 Ana 的（aj_3）这样的定义：“当你走在街上时，想法会独自出现”。
The interviewees agree on the importance of having alternatives to the project presented. They state that to present an alternative it is important to analyse each step that is carried out despite the fact that the final objective is modified. To choose the best option, it is important to make a synthesis; that is, to combine two or more existing ideas, either from the same or different domains. According to the interviewees, this process of combining different ideas is facilitated in spaces of trust and comfort that are not necessarily academic. In relation to this, some interviewees referred to a faculty that was originally in barracks (see Fig. 1, quote 19) and the university was open all night, they lived together for many hours, they did a lot of activities in this university space: ate, played, rested, slept… They stay in this space when they need to do a project or some work. In this line, Gemma (aj_10) says: "We talked a lot about all the projects, in fact at any moment an idea could come to you and we shared it”. Now, the same faculty is in a conventional building and closes at 9 pm. A current student of the same university, Andreu (e_2), who did not know the barracks, explains, "They close the faculty and you go home with your project and your drama". These stories show how the people interviewed consider the space and the interactions established in it as key elements for the incubation stage.
受访者一致认为，拥有替代方案对于所提出的项目至关重要。他们认为，即使最终目标有所改变，也要分析每个执行步骤。为了选择最佳方案，重要的是进行综合；也就是说，将两个或多个现有想法结合起来，这些想法可以来自同一领域或不同领域。根据受访者的说法，这种结合不同想法的过程在信任和舒适的空间中更容易实现，而这些空间不一定是学术性的。在这方面，一些受访者提到了一个最初位于营房内的学院（见图 1，引言 19），大学通宵开放，他们在一起度过了许多小时，在这个大学空间里做了很多活动：吃饭、玩耍、休息、睡觉……当他们需要做项目或工作时，就会待在这个空间里。在这一方面，Gemma（aj_10）说：“我们谈论了很多关于所有项目的事情，事实上在任何时候都可能有一个想法冒出来，我们会分享它。”现在，这个学院已经搬到了一个传统的建筑里，晚上 9 点就关闭了。 一位同校的当前学生，安德鲁（e_2），对营房并不熟悉，他说：“他们关闭了学院，你带着你的项目和你的戏剧回家。”这些故事显示了受访者如何将空间和其中建立的人际互动视为孵化阶段的关键要素。
Fig. 1
  1. Download: Download high-res image (1MB)
    下载：下载高清图片（1MB）
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载：下载全尺寸图片
Fig. 1
  1. Download: Download high-res image (2MB)
    下载：下载高清图片（2MB）
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载：下载全尺寸图片
Fig. 1
  1. Download: Download high-res image (869KB)
    下载：下载高清图片（869KB）
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载：下载全尺寸图片

Fig. 1. Figure of codes and categories identified.
图 1. 识别出的代码和类别图示。

In order to strengthen the creative process, the lecturers have identified a dynamic that has a large impact in this phase: The student presents a detailed proposal of their project and the corrections are made in front of the whole class. The lecturer and the student must argue their positions, as a student explains, we discuss the project "with our pencils in our hands". The lecturer’s role is to ask questions that encourage reflection. Diego (p_3) exemplified a question, "Have you looked at this? What if you draw it on top?". Both the students and the lecturers interviewed positively value these exchange spaces that serve to generate and develop the projects. Among the interviewees there is a perception that during the degree there is a dynamic of constant questioning and this makes the students normalize these dynamics and be more receptive to criticism (as example see Fig. 1, quote 23). The quotes evidences that the trial-error process, inherent in this stage, is very present. Therefore, this ability to keep an open mind can be developed through activities proposed by lecturers, such as the one specified by Borja (aj_5). The lecturer made them rethink the same activity 10 times, each time looking for a particularty and different feature and finally choosing the best option. According to the students, this makes them analyse the situation more deeply. Another dynamic highlighted in the interviews for facilitating the necessary interaction at this stage is to have two to five lecturers working together to give a class. According to all the interviewees, this dynamic is enriching because the lecturers have different perspectives, opinions and experience. The students must reflect on how to best incorporate the different contributions in their work.
为了加强创意过程，讲师们确定了一个在这个阶段具有重大影响的动态：学生向全班展示一个详细的项目提案，并在全班面前进行修改。正如一位学生所说，我们“手拿铅笔”讨论项目。讲师的角色是提出鼓励反思的问题。Diego（p_3）举例说明了这样一个问题：“你看过这个吗？你有没有想过在上面画出来？”接受采访的学生和讲师都高度评价这些有助于生成和发展项目的交流空间。在接受采访的人中，有一种看法认为，在整个学位期间存在着持续的质疑动态，这使得学生将这些动态正常化，并更加接受批评（例如，参见图 1，引文 23）。引文证明，在这个阶段固有的试错过程非常明显。因此，这种保持开放心态的能力可以通过讲师提出的活动来培养，例如 Borja（aj_5）所指定的活动。 讲师让他们对同一活动进行了 10 次重新思考，每次都寻找特定的不同特征，最后选择最佳方案。根据学生的说法，这使得他们更深入地分析情况。在访谈中，另一个被强调的有助于在这个阶段促进必要互动的动态是，有两到五位讲师共同授课。根据所有受访者的说法，这种动态富有成效，因为讲师们有不同的观点、意见和经验。学生必须反思如何最好地将这些不同贡献融入他们的工作中。
Outside the academic environment, the architects interviewed also look for interaction spaces to discuss the projects they are working on so that the members of the team can make contributions (See Figure, quote 21). This is valued positively because the process allows them to move away from the problem, and see it from a different perspective. The architects' comments show the importance of these interaction spaces for gathering information and making a selection of ideas (See Fig. 1, quote: 16 and 17). It may be that after discussing the project the architect who coordinates it decides what to do, or, in other cases, the team of architects decide to discuss and arrive at an agreement with the clients.
在学术环境之外，接受采访的建筑师们也在寻找互动空间来讨论他们正在工作的项目，以便团队成员可以提出意见（见图，第 21 段引文）。这种做法受到积极的评价，因为这一过程使他们能够从不同的角度看待问题。建筑师们的评论显示了这些互动空间在收集信息和选择想法方面的重要性（见图 1，第 16 段和第 17 段引文）。可能的情况是，在讨论完项目后，协调项目的建筑师决定下一步行动，或者在某些情况下，建筑师团队决定与客户进行讨论并达成一致。
Some architects, such as Alba (see Fig. 1, quote 26), comment on the importance of having time to process the information and then reconnect and shape and develop the idea based on the comments made by other architects. Considering the idea that it is necessary to have time, the students interviewed, as example Quim (e_5), emphasize that the frantic pace of the degree leaves them little room to reflect (see Fig. 1, quote 25).
一些建筑师，例如阿尔巴（见图 1，引文 26），评论说，有时间处理信息，然后根据其他建筑师的意见重新连接、塑造和发展想法非常重要。考虑到需要时间，被采访的学生，以奎姆（e_5）为例，强调学位的紧张节奏让他们几乎没有时间进行反思（见图 1，引文 25）。
In short, if we compare the students and the architects in this stage, we can conclude that the factors that facilitate this stage are more absent in the university setting than in the professional setting. The students perceive this stage as a more solitary process, but for architects, the dialogical exchange is more predominant as well as working with multidisciplinary teams that stimulate the creative process.
简而言之，如果我们比较这个阶段的学生和建筑师，我们可以得出结论，促进这一阶段的因素在大学环境中比在专业环境中更为缺乏。学生们认为这一阶段是一个更加独立的过程，但对于建筑师来说，对话式的交流更为普遍，同时与多学科团队合作也能激发创作过程。

3.3. Verification and evaluation
3.3. 验证与评估

Finally, the third phase identified in both the field work and the previous literature is verification and evaluation. In the academic field, the end refers to the point when the student decides that the work is ready to hand in for assessment, and not when it is finished. As Nagore (e_1) points out, "It is never finished, there are always things to change. We have to hand in the project, and in general we stick to the dates". The interviewees relate this stage to the time they choose whether to finish doing the project or leave it. They also feel that the presentation and lecturer assessment are the most important moments of the entire process. Joan (aj_9) exemplifies this situation, and, referring to having more than one lecturer in the class, highlights a factor that can inhibit the creative process because in the final evaluation the opinion of the lecturer at the top of the hierarchy it is the one that predominates and the one that conditions the mark (see Fig. 1, quote: 27)
最后，在实地工作和以往文献中确定的第三个阶段是验证和评估。在学术界，这指的是学生决定作品可以提交进行评估的时刻，而不是作品完成的时候。正如 Nagore（e_1）所指出的，“它永远不会完成，总有可以改进的地方。我们必须提交项目，而且通常我们会遵守日期”。受访者将这一阶段与选择是否完成项目或放弃的时刻联系起来。他们也认为，展示和讲师评估是整个过程中最重要的时刻。Joan（aj_9）以这种情况为例，并提到在课堂上有多位讲师时，一个可能抑制创造性过程的因素，因为在最终评估中，处于等级顶端的讲师的意见占主导地位，并决定了分数（见图 1，引文：27）。
Therefore, even when the student has developed a creative process and perceives that they have better options, they do not take the risk of applying them, and thus more daring or more creative initiatives rarely reach the evaluation and validation stage. That is, in the incubation and ideation stage, they choose another idea to put into practice that is in line with the lecturer’s taste. Pere (e_8) stated, "because of what the lecturer likes there are things that you don't dare to do". Gemma (aj_10) says, "There are lecturers who make very strong criticisms, sometimes it's the lecturer and the shitty student, and I think this inhibits creativity". The students express that at this stage they feel frustrated or confused as a consequence of the power arguments used by certain lecturers.
因此，即使学生已经发展了一套创新过程，并意识到自己有更好的选择，他们也不会冒险去实施这些选择，因此更具冒险性或创造性的倡议很少能够进入评估和验证阶段。也就是说，在孵化与创意阶段，他们选择另一个符合讲师口味的主意来付诸实践。佩雷（e_8）表示：“因为讲师喜欢的东西，有些事情你就不敢去做。”吉玛（aj_10）说：“有些讲师批评得很严厉，有时甚至批评得太过分，我认为这抑制了创造力。”学生们表示，在这个阶段，他们感到沮丧或困惑，这是由于某些讲师使用的权力论点所导致的。
In the case of architects, this last stage is characterized by reflecting the response to the architectural need raised at the beginning of the project and putting it to the test. The architects define this last stage in a few words: feasibility and reflecting the project. They identify that once the architectural intervention has been carried out, it must be put into practice. Clients and citizens play a key role in this stage since they evaluate the project and accept it or, on the contrary, they reject it if the process has not been dialogical. The architects highlight the importance of being open to criticism in case it is necessary to adapt the proposal to new realities (see Fig. 1, quote 31).
在建筑师的情况下，这一最后阶段的特点是反思项目初期提出的建筑需求，并将其付诸实践。建筑师用几个词来定义这一最后阶段：可行性和反思项目。他们认为，一旦建筑干预实施，就必须付诸实践。在这个阶段，客户和市民扮演着关键角色，因为他们评估项目并接受它，或者相反，如果过程没有对话，他们则拒绝它。建筑师强调，如果需要根据新的现实调整提案，那么开放于批评的重要性（见图 1，引言 31）。
The interviews with students show that they basically associate the creative process with doing projects. Specifically, the project they talked about most was the Final Degree Project, also identified as a turning point in their university degree. In many cases they become blocked in the ideation stage, which does not allow them to move on to the last stage of the creative process.
学生对访谈的反应表明，他们基本上将创意过程与做项目联系起来。具体来说，他们谈论最多的项目是毕业设计，这也被认定为他们大学学习生涯的转折点。在许多情况下，他们在构思阶段遇到瓶颈，这阻碍了他们进入创意过程的最后阶段。
The students identify that the creative process culminates with the evaluation (Osborn, 1963); however, the architects identify the last stage as validation (Cropley & Cropley, 2009). That is, neither of them believe the creative process is finished unless they have evidence that the final result is successful, feasible and responds to the aesthetic, technical (or functional, according to Lewis, 2001) and client or lecturer expectations.
学生认为，创造性过程以评估结束（奥斯本，1963 年）；然而，建筑师将最后阶段称为验证（克罗普利和克罗普利，2009 年）。也就是说，除非他们有证据证明最终结果是成功的、可行的，并且符合美学、技术（或根据刘易斯，2001 年的说法，功能性）以及客户或讲师的期望，否则他们都不认为创造性过程已经完成。

4. Discussion and conclusion
第 4 节 讨论与结论

In this article we explored how architecture students and architects perceived and participated in their creative process. And in particular, what factors facilitated or hindered this process according to their perceptions. In this section we discuss the main findings of this research in relation to the previous literature and specify their theoretical and practical implications.
在这篇文章中，我们探讨了建筑学学生和建筑师如何感知并参与他们的创作过程。特别是，根据他们的感知，哪些因素促进了或阻碍了这个过程。在本节中，我们将讨论这项研究的主要发现，并将其与已有文献进行比较，并具体说明其理论意义和实践影响。
Our results are in line with recent research linked to the existing definitions of creativity and the creative process (Botella et al., 2018; Lassig, 2013; Lubart, Zenasni, & Barbot, 2013). In particular, the interviewees reported that they responded to a problem that required a high quality solution and that through the creative process and the facilitating factors, creativity flourished. At the same time they gave an adequate and meaningful response to the environment where it was developed, all of them aspects that Amabile (1996), Csikszentmihalyi (1996) and Pope (2005) has already identified as key aspects of creativity. In conclusion, the view of creativity in architecture according to this study is in line with contextual, broader and inclusive definitions of creativity like those of Amabile (1996), Botella et al. (2018), Csikszentmihalyi (1996), Lubart et al. (2013), and Pope (2005) and not in line with the more restricted view of Hammershoj (2014) who excludes the product of problem solving from creativity.
我们的研究结果与近期关于现有创造力和创造性过程定义的研究相一致（Botella 等人，2018 年；Lassig，2013 年；Lubart，Zenasni 和 Barbot，2013 年）。特别是，受访者表示，他们针对一个需要高质量解决方案的问题进行了回应，并且通过创造性过程和促进因素，创造力得以蓬勃发展。同时，他们对所发展环境中的问题给出了恰当且富有意义的回应，这些都是 Amabile（1996 年）、Csikszentmihalyi（1996 年）和 Pope（2005 年）已经识别出的创造力的关键方面。总之，本研究中关于建筑领域创造力的观点与 Amabile（1996 年）、Botella 等人（2018 年）、Csikszentmihalyi（1996 年）、Lubart 等人（2013 年）和 Pope（2005 年）等人的情境化、更广泛和包容性的创造力定义相一致，而不是与 Hammershoj（2014 年）更为狭隘的观点相一致，后者将解决问题的成果排除在创造力之外。
In the interviews, we observed that the architects generally started from a known problem, and developed ideas by following a dialogical creative process. These ideas could be extrapolated to other realities or the dialogue helped colleagues who had not started the creative process to start it with new approaches they didn’t previously know about. Although in this research, in most cases, the creativity seems to be tacit, the interviews showed that the creative process goes from being a tacit and silent concept into being an explicit one through dialogue with the interviewer. Hence, we have verified the impact of talking about it, and as a result, we recommend promoting conversations with creative connotations in order to facilitate the creative process (Chapell & Craft, 2011) in classrooms and architectural firms.
在访谈中，我们发现建筑师们通常从已知问题出发，通过对话式的创造性过程来发展想法。这些想法可以扩展到其他现实，或者对话有助于那些尚未开始创造性过程的同事以他们之前未知的新方法开始。尽管在本研究中，创造力似乎通常是隐性的，但访谈显示，通过与访谈者的对话，创造性过程从隐性无声的概念转变为显性。因此，我们验证了谈论它的影响，并据此建议在教室和建筑设计公司中推广具有创造性含义的对话，以促进创造性过程（Chapell & Craft，2011）。
In general, the interviewees agreed that the university hierarchical context was more coercive than the work context. The students highlighted the limitations that this hierarchy imposed on cultivating creativity. The power dynamics of certain lecturers did not help students cope with frustration and failure. To overcome these difficulties, students asked for more creative experiences, and highlighted the need to review university programs, especially pedagogical approaches, to encourage the creative process more.
总的来说，受访者普遍认为大学等级制度比工作环境更具强制性。学生们强调了这种等级制度对培养创造力的限制。某些讲师的权力动态不利于学生应对挫折和失败。为了克服这些困难，学生们呼吁提供更多富有创造性的体验，并强调有必要审查大学课程，特别是教学方法，以更有效地促进创造性过程。
As Botella et al. (2018) states, it is important to have the list of all the stages of the creative process to be able to adapt them to each domain. Taking into account the previous contributions in the literature with regards to the stages (Lassig, 2013; Sadler-Smith, 2016) and in relation to our data, we identified three major stages: preparation, ideation and verification/evaluation. Although there are characteristics that are linked between stages, the specific stages are experienced as a consecutive sequence. However, once you have reached the last stage, you may return to the first or second stage; that is, reaching the validation or evaluation stage does not mean that the creative process is finished.
正如 Botella 等人（2018 年）所说，拥有创意过程的各个阶段列表对于能够将其适应每个领域至关重要。考虑到文献中对阶段的研究贡献（Lassig，2013 年；Sadler-Smith，2016 年）以及我们的数据，我们确定了三个主要阶段：准备阶段、构思阶段和验证/评估阶段。尽管各个阶段之间存在相互关联的特点，但具体的阶段却被体验为一种连续的序列。然而，一旦达到最后一个阶段，你可能会回到第一个或第二个阶段；也就是说，达到验证或评估阶段并不意味着创意过程已经结束。
In the preparation stage, the interviewees’ comments corroborate the findings of Epstein, Schmidt, and Warfel (2008). These authors speak of a "challenge", when multiple behaviours are put into practice and new ideas then emerge. In the academic field, students were very critical of any subject that tried to enhance this divergent capacity of observation, stating that it was not meaningful. All interviewees highlighted research, immersion and inspiration as defining characteristics of the first stage. Therefore, based on the results we can recommend a change in the focus of subjects to enhance the first stage of the creative process, to connect students with reality by incorporating the creative process in their daily practice.
在准备阶段，受访者的评论证实了 Epstein、Schmidt 和 Warfel（2008 年）的研究发现。这些作者提到，当多种行为得到实践并且新的想法随之产生时，存在一个“挑战”。在学术界，学生们对任何试图增强这种观察差异能力的学科都持非常批判的态度，认为这没有意义。所有受访者都将研究、沉浸和灵感视为第一阶段的关键特征。因此，根据研究结果，我们可以建议改变课程的重点，以增强创造性过程的第一阶段，通过将创造性过程融入他们的日常实践中，让学生与现实联系起来。
In the Ideation stage, in order for multiple behaviours to emerge, people need time to analyse the idea thoroughly, which is identified in the literature as the incubation stage (for example: Botella et al., 2011; Sadler-Smith, 2016). In our approach we did not make it a different stage, since the interviewees defined it more like taking a break (Botella et al., 2018) in the stage itself or a facilitating factor of this stage. Our interviews suggested that the practical application would be derived from creating spaces for dialogue outside the university’s formal schedule or working hours to have relaxed moments to take a step back from the project and then continue it later. Although Epstein et al. (2008) emphasize the importance of combining different social and structural environments to obtain unusual stimuli, we see that there is a notable lack of this both in the professional and academic field. Conversations took place among friends at the university and among work colleagues, that is, in the comfort zone and space of trust, but no unusual combinations of people were generated in teams or social gatherings.
在创意阶段，为了使多种行为出现，人们需要时间来彻底分析这个想法，这在文献中被识别为孵化阶段（例如：Botella 等人，2011；Sadler-Smith，2016）。在我们的方法中，我们没有将其作为一个不同的阶段，因为受访者将其定义为在这个阶段中更像是一个休息（Botella 等人，2018），或者这个阶段的促进因素。我们的访谈表明，实际应用将来自于在大学正式日程或工作时间之外创造对话空间，以便有放松的时刻，从项目中退出来，然后再继续。尽管 Epstein 等人（2008）强调结合不同的社会和结构环境以获得不寻常的刺激的重要性，但我们看到在专业和学术领域都存在这种明显的缺乏。对话发生在大学的朋友之间以及工作同事之间，即在舒适区和信任空间中，但在团队或社交聚会中没有产生不寻常的人群组合。
The last phase identified is related to completing the work, recognized as validation or evaluation. The architects interviewed, in line with the study by Pinnington and Morris (2002), expressed that architecture firms were not simply concerned with profit maximization, but also with aesthetic and good public outcomes that are likely to influence their values ​​and organizational decisions. This means that organizational decisions are influenced by and prioritize the creative process and dialogue in order to tackle new projects. In the case of students, we see that as a result of university power dynamics, during the previous stage they mase an "internal verification", anticipating the future reactions of the lecturers who would assess their work. Therefore, they did not carry out a creative process freely, but rather one conditioned by the final evaluation.
最后确定的一个阶段与完成工作相关，被称为验证或评估。根据 Pinnington 和 Morris（2002）的研究，采访的建筑师表示，建筑公司并不仅仅关注利润最大化，还关注美学和良好的公共成果，这些成果可能会影响他们的价值观和组织决策。这意味着组织决策受到并优先考虑创意过程和对话，以便应对新项目。在学生的情况下，我们看到由于大学权力动态，在前一个阶段，他们进行了一种“内部验证”，预测将评估他们工作的讲师的反应。因此，他们并没有自由地进行创意过程，而是一种受最终评估条件限制的过程。
In conclusion, this study has contributed to the literature of creativity in highlighting the view of the creative process and the three basic stages of it by architects and architecture students. In doing so, it provides a new vision for understanding how architecture students and architects are involved in the creative process to produce different creative results. Nonetheless, this study has some limitations that further studies might help overcome. First of all, the results of this study cannot statistically generalise to other geographical contexts where architecture degree programmes and the architecture profession might be different. In accord, more studies are welcomed to replicate the exploration of the perceived creative process in the architecture domain in other countries, with the purpose of extracting more universal conclusions. This research framework is a starting point for more research to develop in the architecture and other professional fields in order to obtain transferable conclusions.
在结论中，本研究为创造性领域的文献做出了贡献，突出了建筑师和建筑学学生对创造性过程及其三个基本阶段的观点。在此过程中，它为理解建筑学学生和建筑师如何参与创造性过程以产生不同的创造性成果提供了新的视角。尽管如此，本研究仍存在一些局限性，后续研究或许能帮助克服。首先，本研究的结果无法在统计上推广到其他地理环境中，在这些环境中，建筑学位课程和建筑职业可能有所不同。因此，欢迎更多研究在其他国家复制对建筑领域感知的创造性过程的探索，目的是得出更具普遍性的结论。这一研究框架是更多研究在建筑和其他专业领域发展的起点，以便获得可转移的结论。
Secondly, the participation of lecturers in this study was only used to triangulate students’ perceptions. However, further research might comparatively analyse lecturers and students’ view on the creative process, including an extended sample of lecturers from different backgrounds and courses in order to explore further the hierarchical dynamics highlighted by students and how to overcome them.
其次，本研究中讲师的参与仅用于验证学生的看法。然而，进一步的研究可以比较分析讲师和学生对创作过程的观点，包括来自不同背景和课程的讲师扩大样本，以便进一步探讨学生指出的等级动态，以及如何克服这些问题。

References 参考文献

Cited by (3) 被引用（3 次）

View Abstract 查看摘要
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2019 埃尔塞维耶尔有限公司 版权所有