Ryan Ziols, Natalie R. Davis, T. Holbrook, Sarah Bridges
{"title":"Creativity as a Racializing and Ableizing Scientific Object: Disentangling the Democratic Impulse From Justice-Oriented Futures","authors":"Ryan Ziols, Natalie R. Davis, T. Holbrook, Sarah Bridges","doi":"10.3102/0091732X221089973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this review of literature, we attend to some of the ways that well-intentioned hopes for fostering creativity and encouraging greater inclusion may also rely on problematic premises that work to reify exclusionary logics and practices. More specifically, we historicize and critically examine how creativity studies—often despite explicit efforts to broaden notions of creativity, include marginalized populations, and democratize education—have differently reanimated racializing and ableizing discourses over seven decades of efforts to scientifically study, define, and/or cultivate creativity. In our emphasis on the relationship between past and present designs, we attend to more pernicious tensions and concerns that continue to hold implications for scholarship, research, policy, and practice.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"46 1","pages":"345 - 373"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X221089973","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
In this review of literature, we attend to some of the ways that well-intentioned hopes for fostering creativity and encouraging greater inclusion may also rely on problematic premises that work to reify exclusionary logics and practices. More specifically, we historicize and critically examine how creativity studies—often despite explicit efforts to broaden notions of creativity, include marginalized populations, and democratize education—have differently reanimated racializing and ableizing discourses over seven decades of efforts to scientifically study, define, and/or cultivate creativity. In our emphasis on the relationship between past and present designs, we attend to more pernicious tensions and concerns that continue to hold implications for scholarship, research, policy, and practice.
期刊介绍:
Review of Research in Education (RRE), published annually since 1973 (approximately 416 pp./volume year), provides an overview and descriptive analysis of selected topics of relevant research literature through critical and synthesizing essays. Articles are usually solicited for specific RRE issues. There may also be calls for papers. RRE promotes discussion and controversy about research problems in addition to pulling together and summarizing the work in a field.