Copyright 2020, Larrah Welp

Influencing creativity in agricultural communications: Exploration of influential

factors of creativity in agricultural communications.

by

Larrah Welp, B.S.

A Thesis

In

Agricultural Communications

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCES

Approved

Dr. Courtney Gibson

Chair of Committee

Dr. David Doerfert

Dr. Erica Irlbeck

Mark Sheridan

Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2020

Copyright 2020, Larrah Welp

Texas Tech University, Larrah Welp, May 2020

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For one person to get to this point in the graduate process, success and

accomplishments should be right around the corner. Instead of dwelling on the fear of

the unknown future, it is better to acknowledge what it took to get to this point. The

graduate process comes with a different growth process for each individual who

encounters it. I had goals and ideals of what this process would look like and what it

would bring me. Instead of teaching me exactly what I thought I needed to know about

communicating agriculture to multiple audiences, this process taught me what I did

not know I needed to know about my own self and capabilities. Attending graduate

school allowed me to test my own limitations personally and professionally.

One person who had a huge impact on pushing me to my limits was Dr.

Courtney Gibson. I truly want to thank you for providing me with this opportunity and

forcing me to work outside of my comfort zone. Thank you for believing in my

abilities but also guiding me when I needed it the most. I have enjoyed the friendship

we have built both professionally and personally and will value you as the mentor you

have been to me.

Dr. David Doerfert, thank you for seeing and believing in my potential. From

that first time I stepped into your office, you continued to push my mind and force me

to acknowledge my own thinking process. You provide that self-acknowledgement

one needs for personal growth and development.

Dr. Erica Irlbeck, you have been a continuing guide throughout the graduate

school journey. I want to thank you for guiding me throughout this entire process and

providing me with support and direction when I truly needed it the most.


iii

The faculty and staff I have encountered during my time as a Red Raider have

enriched my education and provided a home for this Colorado girl. The support,

guidance, stories, laughs, and advice shared are second to none, and I want to thank

each and every one of you for being part of my support system.

To my graduate school family, this journey would not have been the same

without each and every one of you. The learning, the laughs, and the shared

experiences of trials and triumphs have collectively added to what I have learned as a

Red Raider and have allowed Lubbock to become a home and place to miss when that

time comes.

The roots my parents have laid in my heart from an early age to love

agriculture and everything it has to offer has led me to this moment. My roots in

agriculture and love of life has blossomed from the love and support of my parents,

siblings, and every member of my family. Thank you for inspiring me continuously.

And to the man who has walked through every step of this journey with me, Brant,

thank you for being patient and growing with me along this path of limitations and

exploration.

Even though I may not have envisioned myself as a Red Raider, this

experience has continued to mold my mind and provide personal growth. I am

thankful for the pride in the Red and Black and will cherish the moments. Wreck ‘Em!


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... viii

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

Background ....................................................................................................... 1

Creativity in Agriculture ............................................................................. 5 Creativity in Agricultural Communications ................................................ 7

Need for the Study .......................................................................................... 10

Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 12

Purpose of Research ........................................................................................ 13

Assumptions .............................................................................................. 13 Limitations ................................................................................................ 14

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 15

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 15

Definitions of Creativity ........................................................................... 15

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 20

Four Ps of Creativity ................................................................................. 21 Creativity in Higher Education ................................................................. 39 Creativity in Agricultural Communications .............................................. 42

III. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 45

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 45

Research Design .............................................................................................. 45

Population & Sample ...................................................................................... 47

Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 49

Procedure/Data Collection .............................................................................. 50

Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 51

Trustworthiness ......................................................................................... 52 Researcher Subjectivity Statement ............................................................ 55

IV. FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 57


v

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 57

Findings for Research Objective One ............................................................. 59

Creativity is Important .............................................................................. 60 Impacts on Creative Development ............................................................ 61

Findings for Research Objective Two............................................................. 63

Creative Definition .................................................................................... 63 Creative Product ........................................................................................ 66 Creative Process ........................................................................................ 68 Creative Person ......................................................................................... 70 Creative Environment ............................................................................... 75 Additional Findings ................................................................................... 80 Summary ................................................................................................... 81

Findings for Research Objective Three........................................................... 82

Strengths .................................................................................................... 83 Opportunities ............................................................................................. 84

Summary ......................................................................................................... 91

V. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, & RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 95

Overview ......................................................................................................... 95

Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 96

Research Objective One ............................................................................ 96 Research Objective Two ........................................................................... 97 Research Objective Three ....................................................................... 107

Discussion ..................................................................................................... 112

Recommendations ......................................................................................... 115

For Practitioners ...................................................................................... 115 For Higher Education .............................................................................. 121 For Future Research ................................................................................ 125

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 128

APPENDIX A - IRB APPROVAL .................................................................. 141

APPENDIX B - RECRUITMENT EMAIL .................................................... 143

APPENDIX C - INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................................. 144


vi

ABSTRACT

Technology has impacted how the world communicates in addition to

modifying production agriculture and how the world grows food. To address the

growing list of challenges the agricultural industry faces, creativity will be a skill to

not only change production agriculture but to communicate these agricultural practices

and changes with consumer audiences who have been removed from the farm.

The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of agricultural

communications professionals on creativity and assess their thoughts on creative skills

needed in future employees. Utilizing Rhodes’ (1961) four Ps model of creativity,

participants evaluated the influencing factors of creativity throughout the creative

product, process, person, and press (environment). This study utilized a

phenomenological, qualitative research design to interview eight participants whom

were board members of agricultural communications organizations. These participants

expressed their views of creativity to understand the need to have a novel, appropriate

idea that would connect with an audience, to utilize opportunities at the beginning of

the creative process for good idea generation, to understand the specific personalities

of the open-minded, risk-taking person, and to encourage a collaborate, supportive

work environment.

The findings of this study instructed the need for agricultural communications

organizations to be aware of the influencing factors of creativity on employees and

provide opportunities for creative enhancement as well as limiting the hindrances to

these factors.


vii

LIST OF TABLES

4.1. Description of participants ............................................................................. 59

4.2. Positive and Negative Weights of the Influencing Factors on

Creativity ....................................................................................................... 81

4.3. Summary of Themes for All Research Objectives ......................................... 92


viii

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1. The complete four-C model adapted from Kaufman and Beghetto (2009)……20

2.2. The Creative Product Analysis Matrix adapted from Besemer (1998)………...27

2.3. A componential model of creativity adapted from Urban (2003)……………...32

2.4. Components and interactions of organizational and individual creativity and

innovation adapted from Amabile and Pratt (2016)…………………….……..35

2.5. The 4P-E Interaction Model adapted from Urban (2003)……………………...38


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

The popular phrase “knowledge is power” coined by Francis Bacon has begun

to lose its relevancy in this technological era. Knowledge and information have

become accessible at our fingertips through the use of smart phones and high-speed

internet while utilizing sites such as Google and YouTube (Powers, 2018). This

information and technology age provides a unique opportunity as people are less

dependent on having knowledge and more dependent on comprehending how to use

the information available to them. Today’s knowledge-heavy population also comes at

a time when the world’s population is increasing, and new global challenges arise each

day. New ideas are needed to address these evolving topics leaving scholars and

business leaders wondering how to solve the growing problems facing our world. The

act of imagining new ideas and turning them into a reality broadly encompasses the

concept of creativity (Naiman, 2019), which can play a strong role in addressing these

concerns.

According to Forbes, creativity is perceived to be the skill of the future

(Powers, 2018). LinkedIn also stated creativity to be the most desired soft skill

employers currently seek when hiring (Lewis, 2019). Soft skills tend to be valued as

more important to employers than hard skills in today’s workplace (Petrone, 2018),

further emphasizing the importance of creativity. Every individual holds a capacity for

creativity in their everyday lives; it becomes an ideation of biological creativity for

how an organism interacts and exists in each day (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996;


2

Marksberry, 1963). This everyday creativity appears through the psychological

processes used in everyday problem solving (Marksberry, 1963).

Problem solving itself incorporates two components of thinking: critical and

creative thinking (Diyanni, 2016). Critical thinking is the act of rational and analytical

thinking to make a decision from interpretation and evaluation (Diyanni, 2016). Its

complement of creative thinking elaborates on the use of novelty and fresh approaches

to solve a problem from different perspectives and open-mindsets (Diyanni, 2016).

The combination of the two allows the thinker to use their full mental capacity in

addressing issues and discovering solutions (Diyanni, 2016). Therefore, creative

thinking has become a vital aspect of problem solving.

One location with opportunity for great creative thinkers in problem solving

has been presented in the workplace. Successful intelligence, the combination of

creative intelligence and analytical intelligence, influences accomplishments in the

workplace (Sternberg, 1997). According to Sternberg (1997), these two types of

thought work together to guide individuals to the practical application of intelligence

to make the final connection of this triangular relationship. This association supports

Donnelly’s (1994) statement that creative thinkers have risen in value in the workplace

as the need for creative thinking and innovation has increased in all industries. In

addition, the shift toward a technological workforce has enacted the need for workers

and industry managers to prepare for creative challenges (Donnelly, 1994). Zhou and

Shalley (2011) suggested creativity within an organization remains in the hands of

employees, but for creativity to have a place in the workplace, the staff should be able

to evolve with change and ambiguity (Donnelly, 1994).


3

Influencing creativity within the workforce can begin with training employees,

but also provides an opportunity for teaching and learning in education systems

(Donnelly, 1994). Assessments of creative thinking and expression were explored in

depth after Guilford (1956) addressed concerns that schools were not producing

enough creative students (Sawyer, 2012; Sternberg, 2006b). Guilford (1956) related a

component of creative thinking to divergent thinking as it encompasses the idea of

developing a wide variety of ideas before narrowing down to the best one.

Measurements of divergent thinking were advanced by Guilford and other colleagues

(Christensen et al., 1958, 1960), and multiple definitions of creativity have been

produced from many researchers’ works (Barron, 1955; Mooney, 1963; Rhodes, 1961;

Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Stein, 1953). From the various definitions of creativity have

come a variety of assessments on creativity ranging from the Creative Product

Semantic Scale (CPSS) and other evaluations creative engineering and mechanics to a

creative temperament scale and creative personality assessments (Besemer & O’Quin,

1986; Cropley, 2000; Gough, 1992; López-Mesa et al., 2011; Saunders et al., 2011;

Shah et al., 2000). The most commonly referenced creativity test was developed by

Torrance (1966). The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) assesses the

creative potential of an individual based on the attributes of flexibility, fluency,

elaboration, and originality. TTCT has typically been used to predict creative potential

in elementary aged youth but has also been used to evaluate creative ability in adults

(Cramond et al., 2005; Kim, 2011). In addition to other tests, these evaluations have

allowed researchers to further interpret creative ability and expression from

individuals (Sawyer, 2012) as well as gain an understanding of how to judge items of


4

creativity (Besemer, 1998) and evaluate different influences on creativity (Urban,

2003).

When looking into students’ abilities, intelligence scores have been increasing

over the past several decades as observed through rising SAT scores and increased

IQs; however, creative thinking has not seen the same growth (Kim, 2011). In fact, the

creative thinking scores seen from the TTCT have shown a decrease in scores during

the same timeframe (Kim, 2011). The decline in creative thinking scores is also

supported by a larger observation of the fourth grade slump that Torrance expected

(Kim, 2011; Torrance, 1968). This “normal” fourth grade slump is typically seen when

predicting creative potential in children as this point in time commonly marks the

suppression of creative talent and energy (Torrance, 1968). Therefore, the need for

developing creative thinkers has been evident based on these declining creativity

scores. Cropley (2001) suggested the use of an open teaching and learning

environment to foster creativity. This principal to foster creativity must lay at the root

of one’s teaching philosophy in encouraging an individual’s cognitive ability,

personality, and motivation to bring out their creative potential (Cropley, 2001).

Following this rule to optimize creative potential can occur in educational settings as

well as throughout the workplace (Cropley, 2001).

To remain competitive in the workforce and in classroom environments,

creativity has become a vital individual and social component (Sternberg & Lubart,

1999), and both creativity and innovation have shown to be important skills in the

current technologically savvy workplace (O’Bryan, 2018). The inspiration of the

individual learner to solve real-world problems in the classroom and in their career has


5

remained essential when evaluating the benefits of project-based learning (Morgan,

1983). The social component of creativity interacts with intrinsic and extrinsic

motivations of vocalizing creativity and developing new innovations (Hill & Amabile,

1993; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Therefore, motivation of the individual to have

creative expression within the classroom and the workplace is an important piece of

successful creative problem solving (Cropley, 2001; Diyanni, 2016).

Creativity in Agriculture

Agriculture acts as a leading industry for many countries across the world as it

provides one of the most basic human needs: food (Intarachaimas, 2012). To

accommodate the world’s increasing population, agriculture has increased production

significantly since the middle of the 20th century (Pretty et al., 2010). Agricultural

production must continue to optimize productivity, address climate issues, adapt to

volatile markets, and face numerous other issues while enduring such a large mission

(Pretty et al., 2010). Innovation certainly rises to the top of the list when determining

how to address the agricultural industry’s ever-growing challenges, and creativity may

be the answer to tackle this endeavor as agriculturalists are tasked with addressing

these issues and solving these problems (Intarachaimas, 2012).

Innovation is viewed as a keyword and hot topic for the agricultural sector to

address issues of sustainability and efficiency in feeding the world (van de Kerkhof &

Wieczorek, 2005). In addition, the need for creative thinking has rapidly become more

apparent in the agricultural industry in recent years (Friedel & Rudd, 2006). Many

researchers have evaluated creative works of agriculture in countries throughout the

world, which have begun to determine that the learning processes, motivations, and


6

success of farmers and their innovations involve collaboration with competing

industries and creativity in their entrepreneurship (de Lauwere, 2005; van de Kerkhof

& Wieczorek, 2005; Vogl et al., 2015; Vogl et al., 2016). It is also important to

interpret agricultural creativity within the United States; however, existing research in

this area is limited.

Inserting creativity in agriculture may prove to be a difficult task without a

contextual definition of creativity. Creativity is no longer classified as some

uninterpretable concept; applications of creativity can and are expected to be put into

action to fulfill a need (Zhao-xiong, 2009). Thus, defining creativity for this study

follows the definition presented by Barron (1955) and Stein (1953) that creativity

requires originality and effectiveness. Promoting creativity in agriculture is an initial

step to stimulate creative problem solving in the industry (Intarachaimas, 2012).

Additionally, students and agriculturalists alike may proceed to determine their own

approach to future problems they will encounter (Intarachaimas, 2012). According to

Zhao-xiong (2009), creative approaches to agriculture have quickly become the norm

with the advanced technologies and advancing markets found within the industry.

Creativity has allowed agriculturalists and individuals to analyze their needs

separately and follow through with the appropriate tactics in production agriculture to

be efficient and profitable while growing a large, safe food supply.

The context and application of agriculture can be defined from a broad

perspective which can involve animals and plants or food production versus food

purchase decisions. As implications of creativity tend to become more focused from

its own broad spectrum, applications of creativity must also become more


7

concentrated within the agricultural sector. For agriculturalists to tackle numerous

issues, they first must have a better understanding of what creativity looks like in their

industry and how to communicate it to the public. Some researchers interpret

acceptance of creative works only happens after the work has been communicated and

accepted by the greater public (Cropley, 1997; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The need for

communication and acceptance of agriculture innovation from the common public has

become a larger focus as consumers have become more vocal in their preferred food

production methods. This has increased the need for improved communication

between the agriculture industry and consumer audiences, which motivated this study

to focus on the agricultural communications discipline within the industry.

Creativity in Agricultural Communications

Agricultural communications has been defined as the works of communicators

associated with food, fiber, environment, and family and youth issues along with a

variety of other rural topics (ACE Background, 2019). The technical skills associated

with members of this discipline include science communication, technical

communications skills, policy issues, and basic agricultural knowledge (Kurtzo et al.,

2016). The necessity for skilled agricultural communicators has been expressed by the

industry with each communicator needing knowledge of the industry, skill in

communication tools and software, and a capability for tailoring a message to a

specific audience (Kurtzo et al., 2016). Agricultural communicators must also be well

versed in these skills while adapting to knowledge gap issues amongst public

audiences (Kurtzo et al., 2016).


8

Based on the growing number of challenges the agricultural industry has seen

recently and will continue to face in the coming years, Pretty et al. (2010) developed a

list of 100 questions to take global agriculture into the future. Many of these questions

will utilize communications tactics to answer; others will require communicators to

spread knowledge of the answers. To develop these new ideas and communicate the

findings to each of these answers effectively, both strategic and creative

communications approaches are needed (Kurtzo et al., 2016). Strategic

communications in agriculture incorporates a large range of skillsets including public

relations, marketing, advertising, journalistic writing and reporting, media production,

print and web design, and social media (Irani & Doerfert, 2013). To effectively utilize

this range of skills for marketing and production with the agricultural communications

discipline, creative skills will also be needed.

One of the common issues facing the agricultural communications industry is

the need to connect with the average consumers, most of whom have been removed

from production agriculture for more than three generations (American Farm Bureau

Federation, 2018). Between the advancements in production agriculture technology

and the increased use of social media, consumer trust in food production has steadily

declined (Doerfert et al., 2005; Gibson et al., 2018). The spread of misinformation

throughout social media channels and among consumers has become commonplace

(Gibson et al., 2018) and makes the challenge of addressing consumer perceptions of

the agricultural industry even more difficult. Additionally, many topics affecting

agriculture are now “hot button” issues involving personal attacks and internal

disputes in the industry, like conventional versus organic production practices (Kurtzo


9

et al., 2016). Unfortunately, misconceptions are all too common within the agricultural

industry, as many consumers do not have basic production agriculture knowledge even

within heavy production states (Estes et al., 2015). This presents a challenging task for

agricultural communicators to deliver accurate, truthful information within the

industry about agricultural issues, while bridging the gap between production

agriculture and misinformed consumers. Agricultural communicators must tap into

multiple skillsets, as well as their creative thinking abilities, to meet the

communication demands for both audiences (Gibson et al., 2018).

Employers have shown a desire for soft skills in agricultural communications

graduates (Clem, 2013; Corder & Irlbeck, 2018; Irlbeck & Akers, 2009; Morgan,

2010, 2012; Morgan & Rucker, 2013). Creativity is among the highly sought after soft

skills requested to enhance the communication efforts in the workplace, especially in

the agricultural industry (Clem, 2013; Corder & Irlbeck, 2018; Irlbeck & Akers,

2009). Unfortunately, employers’ perceptions of graduates indicate the need for

improvements in creative thinking abilities (Irlbeck & Akers, 2009). Corder and

Irlbeck (2018) showed creativity as a desired trait among employers even though it is

often considered a supplemental skill in course delivery. However, implementing a

creative classroom environment within a university setting provides an opportunity for

educators to encourage creative problem solving that can carry over into students’

future work environments (Clem, 2013).

Both academia and industry agree creativity is a much needed competency for

effective and pertinent communication (Morgan & Rucker, 2013). Whether

developing convincing arguments in opposition of misinformation or keeping


10

consumers informed, creativity plays a role in all marketing and communication

efforts (Estes et al., 2015; Specht & Buck, 2014). In addition, creating effective

science communication messages is instrumental in allowing consumers to make

informed decisions regarding scientific issues in agriculture (Merzdorf et al., 2019;

Telg et al., 2018).

Need for the Study

Perceptions and priorities of creativity continue to be formed and understood in

agriculture. Research centralized on agricultural creativity is limited and even more so

within the United States. As conceptual meanings for creativity become more

specialized, proceeding with these views in each discipline allows professionals to

specify their individual needs for creativity. This encourages researchers to target

specific creative needs within disciplines. Within the field of agricultural

communications, a cohesive definition of creativity has yet to present itself (Hancock,

2016), but this does not diminish our need for creativity.

With the average consumer being at least three generations removed from the

farm (American Farm Bureau Federation, 2018), it is the job of agricultural

communicators to relay accurate and truthful information to consumers from farm to

table about how their food was produced. Additionally, the production agricultural

industry has shifted from demands to simply put food on the table to supplying food

that meets the demands of a highly consumer-driven focus. This has affected the way

we market products and communicate information to the public. Moreover, the

addition of a technological and information driven world also adds an additional

challenge. Consumers are overwhelmed with information leaving them to decipher


11

what they think is credible and factual in order to make purchasing decisions. The

challenge for agricultural communicators has shifted to finding ways to connect with

consumers to help them make these decisions. This is where creativity can potentially

have a huge impact on the industry.

The current state of agricultural production focuses on maximizing efficiency

to feed a rapidly growing world population. Scientific communication and

advertisements distributed to agriculturalists are important in helping them decide

which products to use and what they need to be efficient and successful. The

information presented to them must resonate as an important and impactful choice for

their operation. The use of creative agricultural communication strategies will impact

how farmers receive and decipher information.

The agricultural industry remains vital as it provides food, fiber, and fuel for

our everyday consumption. However, many activist groups and individuals are

attacking the industry, its practices, and its values. Misinformed, misunderstood, and

sometimes manipulated animal rights claims have been made against several animal

agriculture operations. A disbelief in advancing technologies have hindered farming

practices. Mockeries of natural energies have caused negative impacts on industrial

efforts. Agricultural communicators have been in a battle to work against these

activists’ claims and to fight for transparency within the industry. Creative

communication efforts have and will continue to play a role in combatting activist

groups.

These are just three examples of many describing the need for creativity within

the field of agricultural communications. However, research applied to creativity


12

within the agricultural communications discipline is currently lacking. The agricultural

communications profession gains popularity and expands each year, which makes the

necessity to explore the discipline’s needs more prevalent than ever (Irani & Doerfert,

2013). Creativity continues to be an important necessity within the discipline and the

lack of current information and understanding of creativity in the field leaves room for

exploration.

Problem Statement

Creative problem solving and innovation are necessary skills in addressing

complex problems agriculturalists have and will face with the growing global

population (Andenero et al., 2016). However, the research on creativity within

agricultural fields, and specifically agricultural communications, is nearly non-

existent. It is clear creativity is desired within the discipline (Clem, 2013; Corder &

Irlbeck, 2018; Irlbeck & Akers, 2009), but at this point, we do not know much about

it. Within agricultural communications, Hancock (2016) explored a basis for creativity

in higher education and provided guidance to fostering a creative classroom

environment. Following this study, the exploration of creativity from an industry

perspective may provide a more holistic view (Hancock, 2016). Understanding the

creative skills used in the industry will guide researchers and practitioners to

understanding the value of creativity from a professional standpoint. Additionally, this

outlook will provide direction as to how educators can better prepare students for their

future creative endeavors.


13

Purpose of Research

The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of agricultural

communications professionals on creativity and assess their thoughts on creative skills

needed in future employees. This study aimed to assess the importance industry

professionals placed on creativity, their views of the influencing factors of creativity

within the field, and their insights on creativity development in the discipline. This

study aimed to help determine the perceptions of industry professionals on the

influencing factors of creativity and their capabilities to perform the necessary duties

in their work-related positions. This study also provided a sounding board for their

perceptions of the strengths and opportunities for improvement of various creative

skills seen within the field. The following research objectives guided this study:

RO1: Determine the importance agricultural communications professionals

place on creativity in the workplace.

RO2: Explore the factors influencing creativity observed in employees in the

field of agricultural communications.

RO3: Explore the perceived assessments of creativity within the field of

agricultural communications.

Assumptions

Creativity is a topic of research applicable to many industries and fields of

study. For this study, it was assumed all participants had some understanding of what

creativity is. Additionally, each participant had the capability to be creative or to

create creative work in general. It was assumed all participants in this study answered

honestly and truthfully with a comprehendible understanding of creativity. This


14

research also encompassed the concept of creativity being a vital component in works

within the agricultural communications industry. The responses from each participant

were assumed to encompass an understanding of the entire agricultural

communications discipline and provided unbiased opinions for creative skills utilized

in the industry. It was also assumed that participants were aware of the challenges and

issues currently facing the agriculture industry.

Limitations

This study was limited by several factors. One limitation to this study was the

nature of evaluating creativity and the likely varied understandings each participant

had of their individual perceptions of creativity. As there is no one set definition of

creativity, responses were influenced by each participant’s own perception and

definition of the concept which could have been very different from the other

participants. Assessing creativity happened in many ways and through various

mediums causing different industry professionals to possibly be exposed to different

definitions and other assessments of creativity. With the broad variety of work done

within the field of agricultural communications, participants’ job descriptions and

responsibilities varied greatly; this could have influenced their views of creativity and

how they responded. Data collection occurred during heaving conference and stock

show season where the population of the study have high attendance resulting in a

small sample size of this study. The target population of this study is from a small

population in the field, thus increasing the possibility of participant identification. It is

important to understand these results are not generalizable as this is a qualitative study

and that is not our goal.


15

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

In order to further explore the definitions and interpretations of creativity and

various thinking styles, it is important to understand the origination of such a complex

concept. Research on creativity took off after Guilford’s address to the American

Psychological Association in 1950 (Barron, 1988; Guilford, 1956). Guilford’s initial

perception of creativity remained closely associated to intellect, which allowed him to

associate factors pertinent to human intelligence (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Guilford,

1956). The four factors influencing productive thinking included reasoning, creativity,

planning, and evaluation (Guilford, 1956). These classes of thought included

convergent and divergent thinking, where the values of divergent thinking were

fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration (Guilford, 1956; Torrance, 1966).

These factors then became the basis of assessing creativity, which are still commonly

utilized in creative efforts (Friedel & Rudd, 2006; Jagtap, 2019; Norton, 2006; Oman

et al., 2013). This chapter will expand upon these initial factors effecting and

influencing creativity as it addresses the definitions of creativity, the four Ps of

creativity conceptual framework, and creativity in science and higher education.

Definitions of Creativity

Providing an agreed upon definition of creativity has been a difficult task for

researchers (Batey & Furnham, 2006). Definitions of the term have been transforming

with fluctuating language throughout the course of creative research; some even

stemming from Bethune (1839) when he used creative ideas and originality to help


16

explain genius. Each researcher has added their own explanation of creativity;

however, two components have remained the same: originality and effectiveness

(Barron, 1955; Stein, 1953). As Runco and Jaeger (2012) emphasized, “original things

must be effective to be creative” (p. 92). Stein (1953) outlined this definition of

creativity by stating, “the creative work is a novel work that is accepted as tenable or

useful or satisfying by a group in some point in time” (p. 311). Adding to the unique

and useful terms, Stein drew on the idea of contributing this novel idea when

appropriate (Stein, 1953). Those people who contributed these novel, unique, and

appropriate ideas to society were often not classified as creative during their lifetime

until their ideas were processed to impact society (Stein, 1953). Others have suggested

additional factors to this definition, such as Simonton (2012) who advocated the

surprise factor to be a contributor to creative work. Ultimately, the standard definition

of creativity remained to involve unique and appropriate ideas (Runco & Jaeger,

2012).

Individualistic vs. Sociocultural Creativity

Further applications of the standard definition began to take hold as research

took off. The beginning research on creativity focused on specifying individualistic

creativity through creative assessments and personality traits (Sawyer, 2012).

Researchers took time to develop predictor tools of creativity and identifying what

makes someone creative (Sawyer, 2012). This individualist approach carried the idea

that creativity came from a new collaboration of ideas to be expressed to the public

(Sawyer, 2012). This individualist view of creativity revolves around the idea that

these new, expressed ideas come from one individual and their personality


17

associations (Sawyer, 2012). Research then shifted to the cognitive approach of the

mental thinking processes that followed during creative action to cultivate innovative

results (Sawyer, 2012). After understanding the mental processes, researchers began to

interpret a sociocultural approach with the influence of social and cultural contexts to

the creative system based on how the individual’s cognitive thinking responds from

outside interaction (Sawyer, 2012). This led to a new sociocultural focused definition

which states “creativity is the generation of a product that is judged to be novel and

also to be appropriate, useful, or valuable by a suitably knowledgeable social group”

(Sawyer, 2012, p. 8). The sociocultural definition enforces the need for creativity to be

recognized and appropriate for social groups as a whole as well as novel for each

individual within the group (Sawyer, 2012). This sociocultural approach ensures the

creativity is novel and appropriate to the creator in addition to those with potential

impacts from the creativity as this checks for other ideas the creator may have not

previously known about (Sawyer, 2012). These multiple interpretations of creativity

have influenced the current outlook on creative interaction throughout the science

community as sociological views on creativity has enhanced the socialization of

creativity (Sawyer, 2012).

Four C Model of Creativity

People often classified creative individuals as those who contributed a large

creative concept to society; however, what about the everyday creative items, such as

non-recipe inspired dinners in the kitchen, assembling photos for a scrapbook, or

developing a creative solution to some work issue? Many researchers supported the

idea that creative capabilities are in every person (Besemer & O’Quin, 1986; Cropley,


18

2001; Sawyer, 2012, etc.); however, the expression of creative ideas are not all the

same. With this in mind, Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) deciphered these uses of

creativity from everyday people to those with large creative contributions to society in

order to develop four classifications for creative performers: Big-C, little-c, mini-c,

and Pro-C.

The four classifications Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) described are based on

creative development and communication of an idea. Performers of Big-C are

renowned individuals known for their creative genius (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009),

who spent a large portion of their career working up to their largest contribution of

creativity (Simonton, 1991). The Big-C thinker underwent specific processes to mold

their creative thinking (Gruber, 1981), which incorporated the overall domain of

creativity, the gatekeepers of the field, and the use and interpretation between the two

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Big-C individuals include those remembered for their

advancement and innovation that may range from Michelangelo and his paintings in

the Sistine Chapel or Charles Darwin.

Little-c is termed as everyday creativity acknowledging the smaller

performances of creativity and expression in all people (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).

The analysis of layperson creativity prioritized everyday novelty, originality, and

freedom of expression (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Overall, little-c creativity is

encouraged from acts of enjoyment and passion leading to self-fulfillment (Amabile,

1996). Everyday people may include your grandma and her hand stitching creations in

addition to your coworkers’ innovative solutions at work.


19

The next classification of mini-c draws on an interpersonal development of

creativity. Beghetto and Kaufman (2007) defined mini-c creativity as “the novel and

personally meaningful interpretation of experiences, actions and events” (p. 73). The

concept of mini-c allowed the initial bursts of creative thought to pass the owner’s

judgment before the potential to become a sharable creation (Kaufman & Beghetto,

2009). Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) incorporated the mini-c category for initial

conceptions of creativity in elementary and high school ideas that often get overlooked

in classroom settings, but these ideas of creativity are important and creative to

themselves.

The final distinction of creativity came through professional expertise as Pro-C

(Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Pro-C creativity opened up room for creative judgment

between little-c and Big-C. This professional category recognized accomplished

individuals for their work but may not attain Big-C status. At a given point in time, the

difference between fads and permanent contributions was not known leaving a

successfully creative individual to be acknowledged with the potential to not be

classified as an elite (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). The Four C Model of Creativity

seen in Figure 2.1 may have added complexity to creative research; however, it

dissected the performance level of creative works an individual may attain (Kaufman

& Beghetto, 2009). Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) discussed a variety of painters, like

Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier, who would have been considered creative for their time

but have not had a lasting impression on society and culture.


20

Figure 2.1. The complete four-C model adapted from Kaufman and Beghetto (2009).

Conceptual Framework

The various classifications of creativity may seem to add to its complexity;

however, Scott Isaksen (1988) compares creativity to a diamond to allow researchers

to interpret each layer and angle:

The study of creativity, rather than being an exact science, appears to be like a

diamond. It is certainly worthwhile, and you can see the entire jewel, or you

can focus on one of its many facets. When your attention is directed at only

one of its many facets, care must be taken to avoid the tendency to forget that

you are only looking at one part and not the whole. Real value, operationally,

occurs when all facets are taken into consideration. (p. 177)

The definition of creativity used for this study led us into a better interpretation

between the individualistic and sociocultural ideals of creativity (Bruner & Minturn,

1955; Sawyer, 2012; Stein, 1953). From there, the performance levels of creativity can


21

be analyzed using the 4 C Model of Creativity outlined by Kaufman and Beghetto

(Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). This model of creativity levels connects to the

interpretation of the multiple approach system of creativity defined by Rhodes (1961)

and Mooney (1963). When determining a definition of creativity, Rhodes (1961)

outlined four strands where each is unique academically but functionally operate

together. This four-strand approach of the four Ps of creativity served as the

conceptual framework to guide this study.

Four Ps of Creativity

When determining a definition of creativity, Rhodes (1961) took the 40

existing varying definitions and structured them into groups even as many overlapped

and did not offer a mutually exclusive definition. The resulting groups were used to

identify the four Ps of creativity: person, process, product, and press (Rhodes, 1961).

MacKinnon (1965), Mooney (1963), and Taylor (1988) all have adopted this outline to

approach creativity, and each of these approaches have led researchers to develop

specific assessments to creativity. The following will further develop each construct of

creativity.

Creative Process

A common question arises of how does a person develop a creative thought or

novel idea? The intrigue to understand how these ideas are formed interested

researchers to study the cognitive psychology necessary to form these thoughts

(Sawyer, 2012). The use of cognitive psychology provided opportunities for

researchers to evaluate the mental processes a normal mind undergoes (Sawyer, 2012).

From these processes and cognitive abilities, psychologists were able to visualize how


22

the creative ideas emerged from such normal triggers (Sawyer, 2012). The observed

creative concepts showed the way to a series of steps the more creative mind can take

(Sawyer, 2012).

Even though idealist theorists claim the birth of the creative idea signals the

end of the creative process, action theorists pointed to the need for trial and tribulation

of the idea to ensure the effectiveness and workability of the concept (Sawyer, 2012).

Studying the creative process has led psychologists to foster a series of steps, with

stages supporting the need to develop and select the best idea available (Sawyer,

2012). Originally, the simple outline involved divergent thinking followed by

convergent thinking (Guilford, 1956). Divergent thinking is the process of

brainstorming and cultivating as many ideas as possible that have a variety of options

without one unique decisive conclusion for the presented problem (Guilford, 1956).

Convergent thinking then offers the idea to evaluate the list of ideas and select the

most appropriate concept or solution that addresses the problem in the direction of

thinking pertinent to the issue (Guilford, 1956). However, this creative process

evolved to acquire more information and develop ideas over time.

Further exploring the cognitive domain steered researchers to develop

numerous outlines of the mental processes taken in creativity (Sawyer, 2012).

Marksberry’s (1963) four stage process to creative problem solving included assessing

the problem, brainstorming, selecting the idea, and evaluating the selection, which can

happen at any point while problem solving (Marksberry, 1963). Yet, Sawyer (2012)

saw an opportunity to integrate the multitude of cognitive processes classified by

researchers when creative a unified list (Bransford & Stein, 1984; Burnard et al., 2006;


23

Gordon, 1961; S. G. Isaksen et al., 2000; Kelley, 2001; QCA, 2005; Scott et al., 2004;

Sternberg, 2006a; Wallas, 1926). This list of eight collaborative steps identified by

Sawyer (2012) includes the following steps:

1. Find and formulate the problem.

2. Acquire knowledge relevant to the problem.

3. Gather a broad range of potentially related information.

4. Take time off for incubation.

5. Generate a large variety of ideas.

6. Combine ideas in unexpected ways.

7. Select the best ideas, applying relevant criteria.

8. Externalize the idea using materials and representations. (p. 88)

To be an effective creative problem-solver, the first step is always to identify

the problem (Bransford & Stein, 1984; Cropley, 2001; Marksberry, 1963). This

initiates the understanding of such an issue and what steps might need to be taken in

order to come to a solution. Whether involved in business, science, or arts, identifying

the problem can be complex, which encourages the use of divergent thinking in

formulating a well-crafted problem statement (Sawyer, 2012). After discovering the

problem, the second step is to obtain as much information pertinent to the problem as

possible, which may include other research, works, or any other information. Gardner

(1993) acknowledged the most creative works happen after years of being engrossed

in the topic and field of inquiry; therefore, understanding the related information

inspired creative thought. The third step requires individuals to remain aware of the

surroundings and evaluate all possible opportunities as the creative spark could be


24

around the corner, literally or figuratively (Mumford et al., 2003). The fourth step

involves stepping back for an incubation period which provides opportunities for the

unconscious mind to process all of the information gathered and make connections to

create solutions to the problem without actively working on the project (Sawyer,

2012).

After allowing the mind to dwell on the problem, the fifth step allows for an

opportunity for idea generation. The period for divergent thinking opens to develop

lots of ideas that have a potential to address the problem (Sawyer, 2012). Throughout

this process, sharing ideas and collaboration with others played a role in determining a

good solution (Sawyer, 2012), especially during the incubation process (Simonton,

1988) and comprises the sixth step in the process. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) influenced

this concept as he noted creativity was more about the interaction between someone’s

thoughts and the sociocultural application rather than just the thoughts inside one’s

head.

The final two steps of the creative process involve periods of convergent

thinking and communication. In the seventh step, critical thinking arises to determine

the best ideas, and this evaluation process grasps the vast knowledge base to assess

each idea against previous work (Sawyer, 2012). Blair and Mumford (2007) analyzed

the literature to determine 12 attributes commonly used when appraising ideas: risky,

easy to understand, original, complete description (includes detailed steps for idea

execution), complicated, consistent with existing social norms, high probability of

success, easy to implement, benefits many people, produces desired societal rewards,

time and effort required to implement, and complexity of implementation. The most


25

important factors of idea evaluation were risky and original ideas during a study

performed on college students (Blair & Mumford, 2007). Finally, in the eighth step, an

effective creator should be able to judge the ability of the creative idea and then

externalize it publicly (Sawyer, 2012). This final step contains the execution of the

idea and interpreting how it will be received (Sawyer, 2012). Stein (1953) explained

the creative person can only be classified by his creativity after communicating this

idea to the public. In the sciences, the concept is likely to be communicated orally or

through experimentation; however, the arts share their ideas through expression in

dance, vocally, or visually (Stein, 1953). Only once an idea had been consumed by an

appropriate audience can effective creative expression will be recognized (Sawyer,

2012; Stein, 1953). Furthermore, the creative process encompasses everyday mental

processes where creativity is the combination of simple cognitive function (Sawyer,

2012) and typically is derived from a creative process of flow once the initial idea

sparks (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

The most common test of the creative process is the Torrance Test for Creative

Thinking (TTCT) (Cropley, 2000). Torrance (1966) developed this test to predict

creative ability in children through the use of verbal and figural tests, which observed

the results of the creative process taken by the individual and assessed the associations

made from their process. Additionally, the TTCT promotes understanding of the

cognitive abilities in the human mind at such a young age (Cramond et al., 2005;

Torrance, 1966). The measures of the TTCT included fluency, flexibility, and

originality; the consistency on scores of elaboration was difficult to maintain with

multiple scorers causing the measure to be excluded (Cramond et al., 2005; Torrance,


26

1966). The connections made in the TTCT allowed the participants to show these

measures through their creative processes taken (Cramond et al., 2005; Cropley,

2000). On a 40-year follow up of the tests, the use of the TTCT was supported in

predicting creative ability expressed in adulthood (Cramond et al., 2005).

Creative Product

When assessing creativity in an individual, their specific creative

accomplishments are viewed (Taylor, 1988). However, it is difficult to determine how

those accomplishments are judged to be creative without subjective views being a

factor (Sawyer, 2012). Additionally, there are a variety of levels of creativity to be

evaluated that Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) outlined when assessing creativity of a

product.

Rhodes (1961) described products as the tangible form for one’s thoughts in

addition to being “artifacts of thought” (p. 309). Mooney (1963) emphasized the

importance to first develop criterion for the product before being able to assess

creativity elsewhere. Drevdahl (1956) was one of the first to identify the criterion

problem, which was need for valid creative assessments of the person and product.

After reviewing literature and understanding the criterion problem, Besemer and

Treffinger (1981) acknowledged criterion had been developed for the creative person.

This encouraged them to set out on a journey to develop criteria to evaluate creative

products (Besemer & Treffinger, 1981). The initial review of creative product specific

criteria included 90 sources, with characteristics distinguished into factors of novelty,

resolution, and elaboration and synthesis (Besemer & Treffinger, 1981). Besemer and

Treffinger (1981) developed the Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM) where


27

each category included distinct supporting adjectives to emphasize the qualities of a

creative product. After Besemer and O’Quin (1986) reevaluated these supporting

adjectives from the CPAM to develop the Creative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS).

The tests of the CPSS proved to deem this scale as useful to those assessing creative

products and promoting items on more than intuition (Besemer & O’Quin, 1986).

Each category of the CPSS adds to the overall creativity of the product being

evaluated and the connection between the three determines the creativity level which

can be seen in Figure 2.2. The CPSS was developed as a tool for both experts and non-

experts to use when assessing creative products, which has been used to evaluate

engineering designs in education as well as evaluating other creative products in

multiple countries and languages (Besemer, 1998; Besemer & O’Quin, 1986; Oman et

al., 2013).

Figure 2.2. The Creative Product Analysis Matrix adapted from Besemer (1998).


28

To further understand the CPSS, each factor from Figure 2.2 should be

elaborated on. Novelty is the first factor addressing the newness of the product, which

can suggest a new idea, a new process to make a product, or new materials (Besemer,

1998). Each factor of the CPSS is broken down into multiple facets for further

evaluation, and the facets of novelty include elements of originality and surprise,

which help determine elements related to being new, unique, and unexpected

(Besemer, 1998). The second factor of a creative product encompasses the resolution

of the product to determine the effectiveness and workability of a product by

evaluating the facets of valuable, logical, useful, and understandable. These are

assessed by classifying the products’ levels of importance, significance, logicality,

relevance, effectiveness, functionality, meaningful, and clear (Besemer, 1998). The

final element of a creative product depends on the elaboration and synthesis of the

product, which is often referred to as the style elements of the result (Besemer, 1998).

To evaluate the aesthetic appeal of a product, organic, elegant, and well-crafted are the

characteristics determined to guide this judgement, which looks at elements of

organization, completeness, attractiveness, charming, complicated, intricate, skillful,

and well-crafted (Besemer, 1998). The evaluation of the chairs supported the

development of the CPSS and its ability to provide input on the creative application of

a product (Besemer, 1998).

Creative Person

One of the perspectives of creativity came from the person themselves.

Torrance (1988) identified the need for a person to enjoy what they are doing in order

for personality characteristics of a creative person to arise. Other creativity researchers


29

have also agreed with this perspective (Amabile, 1986, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

In order to address the personality characteristics of creative persons, Buel (1960),

Gough and Heilbrun (1965), and Torrance (1966) were just a few of the many

researchers to outline personality characteristics relevant to what makes a person

creative. As described above, the identification of Big-C, Pro-C, little-c, and mini-c all

played a role in assessing creative people and identifying their creative work

(Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).

Many researchers have set out to determine a list or an assessment of creative

personality traits to identify creative potential of a person (Barron & Harrington, 1981;

Dellas & Gaier, 1970; Hocevar, 1981). Cropley (2001) identified both negative and

positive attributes that influence a creative person in addition to providing hindrances.

Dellas and Gaier (1970) also determined certain attributes that separated creative types

from their counterparts: independence (both in attitudes and in social behavior),

dominance, introversion, openness, breadth of interests, self-acceptance, intuitiveness,

flexibility, social poise, lack of concern for social norms, and antisocial attitudes.

Additionally, Dacey (1988) presented nine determinants of creative people: tolerance

of ambiguity, stimulus freedom, functional freedom, flexibility, risk taking, preference

for complexity, androgyny (possession of both male and female characteristics),

acceptance of being different, and positive attitude to work. Barron and Harrington

(1981) evaluated a large variety of creative personality assessments to emphasize the

traits: complexity, autonomy, self-confidence, the ability to tolerate contradictory

aspects of one’s own self, and high evaluation of aesthetic qualities. These

classifications and slight variations continued through many different studies


30

(Cropley, 2001). Through each of these lists that described a creative person, each

researcher had their own take on what characteristics a person with creative ability

will display, but Cropley (2001) identified a few distinctive traits: intrinsic motivation,

openness, preference for complexity, and courage to create. Many of these lists were

created using some form of a creative personality scale to understand how an

individual utilizes their creativity within their specific field of work or study (Barron

& Harrington, 1981; Cropley, 2001; Dacey, 1988; Dellas & Gaier, 1970).

One thing researchers agreed upon was the need for motivation in the creative

individual (Cropley, 2001). Oftentimes, people performed creatively only when they

have the motivation and dedicated themselves to do something (Sternberg, 2006b).

Hassenstein (1988) observed creative individuals with an obsessive nature, which

aligned with Amabile’s (1996) understanding of internal desire to be the initiator. Rea

(2003) molded a connection between elements of seriousness and fun that truly

motivated personalities to show creative intelligence as discussed in the theory of the

motivated mind. Cropley and Cropley (2000) demonstrated the need for specific goals

and definitions to push students to their end goal; this was due to their ability to

internalize the end goal and push toward that reward. Ultimately, these descriptions of

motivation supported the intrinsic motivation principle with motivational synergy

(Amabile & Pratt, 2016). People can be motivated intrinsically toward a task based on

enjoyment, fulfillment and challenge of the work or be extrinsically inspired based on

deadline pressure, incentives, recognition, or a combination of the these (Amabile &

Pratt, 2016). This motivational factor plays a strong role in creative achievement.


31

One of the major limitations of the personality approach to creativity revealed

itself as not having one simple definition and explanation of the creative personality

(McMullan, 1976). As the concepts were further explored, committing to one single

concept to describe creative behavior proved to be difficult (Necka, 1986), especially

as creative behavior is viewed as an interaction between person and situation (Urban,

2003; Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1990). Urban (2003) recognized this need and

developed a componential model of creativity to combine the personality

characteristics that work with various process factors to address the problem in an

individual’s environment that can be seen in Figure 2.3. The combination of these

factors introduced an integrative, holistic outlook on creativity with motivation,

personal, affective and social elements (Cropley, 1997, 2001). Urban’s (2003)

complex model represented in Figure 2.3 shows the interaction of cognitive and

personality components, which include divergent thinking and acting; general

knowledge and thinking base; specific knowledge base and area-specific skills;

focusing and task commitment; motivation and motives; and openness and tolerance

of ambiguity. Each of these components interfere with environmental factors observed

in Figure 2.3 such as the individual dimension; the group or local dimension; and the

societal, historical, and global dimension (Urban, 2003). This model presents the

optimal conditions for creativity to thrive when all elements are present (Cropley,

2001). It also conditions researchers to better understand if one piece of the puzzle is

missing such as focus or a poor environment, the creative potential may have been

hindered (Cropley, 2001).


32

Figure 2.3. A componential model of creativity adapted from Urban (2003).

Creative Environment

After the influence of the process, product, and person to develop a creative

outcome, one more element to creativity is left: the environment. Rhodes (1961)

referred to this element as the ecological press between the an individual and the

environment. The individual has done the creating, but the result of creativity has

stemmed from the creator’s personality, values, attitude, available equipment, and

everyday experiences of life (Rhodes, 1961). Additionally, the outcome of creative

production resemble the interactions of ideas with internal and external stimulation


33

(Rhodes, 1961). This introduced the need for a social effect on creativity (Amabile &

Gryskiewicz, 1989). In this social culture, the creative person remained in a state of

defiance to deviate from the accepted norms of society (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995)

and required courage to step out of box in order to create away from the conventional

opinions (Motamedi, 1982).

To make the environmental component more applicable, several studies have

revolved around the social factors affecting classroom and workplace creativity

(Amabile et al., 1996; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Cropley, 2001; Donnelly, 1994;

Hill & Amabile, 1993; Motamedi, 1982; Simonton, 1975). The workplace

environment is often described as the social culture of an organization with some

physical factors thrown into the mix (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989). These

environmental variables can include political fragmentation and cultural diversity from

a broad scope (Simonton, 1975) or an individual-based evaluation, competition, and

reward in a narrower glance (Amabile, 1979). This social implication on creativity

effects the work environment culture leading researchers to understand the factors

most likely to influence creative ideas (Amabile, 1998; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989;

Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

Amabile (1998) developed the model of creativity and innovation in

organizations found, which introduced the ideas of individual creativity,

organizational creativity, and the interaction between the two. The model was

developed based on three components: “(a) skills in innovation management occurring

primarily at the level of the local supervisor; (b) motivation to innovate, evident as a

commitment to innovation at the organizational level; and (c) resources, including


34

materials, personnel, and time” (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989, p. 233). This initial

model outlined the organizational components of creativity. An update to the model

added three individual and group factors of creativity: (a) intrinsic motivation to do the

task, (b) skills in the task domain, and (c) creativity-relevant processes (Amabile &

Pratt, 2016). This updated dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation

in organizations can be observed in Figure 2.4. The collective model can be used to

incorporate both organizational and individual influences of skill, motivation, and

resources to effectively develop creative production at an organizational level

(Amabile & Pratt, 2016).


35

Figure 2.4. Components and interactions of organizational and individual creativity

and innovation adapted from Amabile and Pratt (2016).

Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989) developed the Work Environment Inventory

from the original structure of the dynamic componential model of creativity and

innovation in organizations. This assessment aimed to single out the factors most


36

likely to influence creative expression in the work climate (Amabile & Gryskiewicz,

1989). After a few rounds of instrument refinement, two sets of categories emerged

that affect creative production: environmental stimulants to creativity and

environmental obstacles to creativity (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989). Amabile and

Gryskiewicz (1989) described eight environmental stimulants to creativity:

1. Freedom – liberty in deciding what to do in one’s work or how to do it.

2. Challenge – a sense of having to work hard on challenging tasks and

important projects.

3. Resources – access to appropriate resources, including people, materials,

facilities, and information.

4. Supervisor – a supervisor who sets goals appropriately, supports the work

group within the organizations, values individual contributions, and serves

as an intelligent, enthusiastic work model.

5. Coworkers – a diversely skilled work group in which people communicate

well, are open to new ideas, constructively challenge each other’s work,

trust and help each other, and feel committed to the work they are doing.

6. Recognition – fair, constructive feedback on work, leading to appropriate

recognition and reward of good efforts; an atmosphere where employees’

interests as well as their skills are recognized.

7. Unity and cooperation – a cooperative, collaborative organizational

atmosphere in which there is a lively flow of ideas around a shared vision.


37

8. Creativity supports – an organizational atmosphere in which creativity is

encouraged and mechanisms exist to foster the expression and development

of creative ideas.

Additionally, Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989) provided four factors that

described the low creativity items of the environmental obstacles to creativity:

1. Time pressure – too much work to do in the time allotted.

2. Evaluation – threatening evaluation procedures; an atmosphere of

excessive negative criticism of work.

3. Status quo – an emphasis in the organization on avoiding risks and doing

things the way they have always been done.

4. Political problems – areas of the organization serving as hindrances to each

other’s work, through destructive competition, excessive concern about

protecting territory, and other political problems.

The combination of these two sets of factors provided a balance to the

evolvement of creativity within the work environment (Amabile & Gryskiewicz,

1989). In an effort to produce meaningful work, the organization and individual need

to work together for effective creative production (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). As Hill

and Amabile (1993) stated, “the greater the areas of overlap between resources,

techniques for using those resources, and motivation, the greater the probability of true

creativity and successful innovation” (p. 424).

After analyzing each component of creativity, Urban (2003) used the 4P-E

interaction model in Figure 2.5 to outline the interactions possible for creative

development and expression. The additional variable here is the problem presented to


38

trigger the creative thoughts and characteristics of an individual. This interaction

causes the processes to ignite from the capability of the individual addressing the

problem in order to develop the production of an idea (Urban, 2003). All of these

interactions are affected by environmental influences during the process of creative

development (Urban, 2003). The production of creativity acted as a reflection of the

social, cultural, historical, and environmental factors prevalent when the idea was

formed (Urban, 2003).

Figure 2.5. The 4P-E Interaction Model adapted from Urban (2003).


39

After clarifying the approaches to creativity, conflicts between the approaches

began to identify themselves (Mooney, 1963). Scholars emphasize that the

identification of one result or idea may suppress other creative activity and processes

for those individuals. Many times, the creative environment for one individual has not

proven to be conducive for another individual’s creativity. As Mooney (1963) stated,

understanding the four approaches is important to understand how each approach

might affect someone else and even more so when realizing how each approach

conflicts with another. However, this attitude to creativity allows researchers to

emphasize different components of creativity and work toward a common goal of

better psychoanalyzing each creative mind. Lou et al. (2012) found experts in higher

education prioritize the four Ps relatively close together when assessing creativity. By

understanding the close classification of the four Ps, further analysis of the four Ps will

allow researchers to understand which of the specific factors within the four Ps stand

out the most and how to integrate all of them together for optimum creativity.

Creativity in Higher Education

The field of creativity is widespread with applications in many disciplines.

Countless assessments have been used to classify creative contributions among peers

in disciplines of architecture, dance, theater, engineering, and biology. The resulting

expression of creativity depended upon the novelty and effectiveness of the idea

(Barron, 1955; Stein, 1953) in addition to how well the person communicated the very

idea (Cropley, 1997; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). There is a need to incorporate these

ideas of creativity into all disciplines and how it factors into our individual and

community’s lives (Jackson, 2006a). Creativity also has a place in higher education as


40

Barnett (2000) stated, “higher education is faced with not just preparing students for a

complex world, it is faced with preparing students for a supercomplex world.” Barnett

(Barnett, 2000) challenged higher education to understand its role in student

development for this complex role, and utilizing creativity in curriculum development

helps prepare students for these challenges (Jackson, 2006a).

Jackson (2006a) outlined three reasons why creativity has an important place

in higher education. The first need for creativity is that “being creative is a

fundamentally human characteristic” (Jackson, 2006a), and it allows people to have

more fulfillment and motivation. The second importance remains in the fact that

creativity plays a large role in any disciplinary field even if it might mean something a

little differently in each context (Jackson, 2006a). A third importance encompasses the

need for creativity in people’s daily work to face the complexity and evolving world

(Jackson, 2006a). Within the field of agricultural communications, Gibson et al.

(2018) found faculty agreed with each of these outlooks on creativity and how they

should be utilized. Creativity has a place in higher education to prepare students to

face these adverse challenges (Jackson, 2006a).

Many of the strategies to promote creative learning have been found in the

process of learning and embracing how students learn (Jackson, 2006a). Moving away

from teacher-directed classrooms and encouraging self-motivating and self-regulating

learners has been the thought behind creative learning environments (Jackson, 2006a).

For these environments to work best, Zimmerman and Labuhn (2012) suggested that

students should be prepared with the habits and behaviors necessary to be a self-

regulated learner. However, changing to this faciliatory pedagogy style may take time


41

for students to adapt to their freedom and educational control (Northedge, 2003), but

too much control may deter students from following course objectives (Gibson et al.,

2018). Additionally, there is a need to recognize students’ voices as Jackson (2006b)

found a relationship between expectations presented to students in the learning

environment and their understanding and approach to learning. By increasing their

understanding of creativity within the learning environment, students have a better

understanding of what to do with creativity in their learning processes (Jackson,

2006b).

Jackson (2006b) suggested the need to align student creativity in higher

education with discipline specific definitions of creativity. To train creative scientists

or artists, educators have to first understand what creativity means in their disciplines

and implement those definitions in the classroom environment (Jackson, 2006b).

Jahnke et al. (2017) found empirical evidence that educators do not have one

consensus on what creativity is, but observe students processing new information into

their learning. These educators agreed creativity is factored into learning, but is

observed as more of a subjective process (Jahnke et al., 2017). Since Guilford’s (1956)

address, a multitude of creative assessments have been developed that Barbot et al.

(2011) reviewed. The review incorporated assessments on if and how creative a

student was in addition to evaluating cognitive, conative, and environmental aspects

with products of creativity and creative styles completing the review (Barbot et al.,

2011). Each of these assessments seemed to be outdated, and with the changing times

and new priorities of creativity, creative assessments need to be reevaluated as


42

creativity is an important application in education and development (Barbot et al.,

2011).

Implementing creativity in higher education is apparent and should be done by

coordinating it with discipline specific needs (Jackson, 2006b). Additionally,

acknowledging how the classroom environment and culture of higher education

affects students and educators allows for recognition of needs as “a stressed academic,

like a stressed student, is rarely creative” (Edwards et al., 2006, p. 73).

Acknowledging the needs of the creative type remains important and further

understanding these creative needs within disciplines will enhance the opportunities

and capabilities of those fields of study. This next section elaborates on what has been

evaluated pertaining to creativity throughout the field of agricultural communications.


The exploration of creativity in agricultural communications has been limited;

however, a few studies have observed the need for creativity throughout the discipline

in higher education and throughout the workplace. Swanson and Gore (1976) created a

discussion about what creativity means for the agricultural communicator and how it

can be used to enhance the overall engagement and communication materials sent

through extension communications. Additionally, Cech (1969) outlined the creative

person tends to develop a broad list of ideas, be more impulsive, have a sense of

humor, have a broad list of interests, and many more. Yet, the need for creative

communications within agriculture had a place back in 1969 (Cech, 1969).

More recent reviews of discipline needs and competencies desired in recent

graduates and higher education programs continuously come back to the need for


43

creativity (Clem, 2013; Corder & Irlbeck, 2018; Gibson et al., 2018; Hancock, 2016;

Irlbeck & Akers, 2009; Morgan, 2010, 2012; Morgan & Rucker, 2013). Industry

professionals throughout agricultural communications have expressed a desire to see

creativity in employees and in recent graduates from higher education; however, they

do not always see creativity as a trait being taught in graduates (Clem, 2013; Corder &

Irlbeck, 2018; Morgan, 2010). Additionally, Irlbeck and Akers (2009) found creativity

to have the lowest mean score in recent graduates’ workplace habits as rated by

employers and co-workers. This study recommended further critical and creative

thinking to be incorporated in more assignments and activities throughout academic

programs (Irlbeck & Akers, 2009).

When analyzing faculty members from agricultural communications programs,

Gibson et al. (2018) may not have determined a definition of creativity for the

discipline but found that many faculty acknowledge creativity even if they do not have

an assessment for it. Morgan and Rucker (2013) also found that faculty members

prioritize creativity in the necessary competencies for successful programs. Students

themselves have also seen a need for creativity training throughout their academic

journey but placed more emphasis on creativity being encouraged from intrinsic

motivation than from teacher reinforcement (Hancock, 2016). Bringing creativity back

into the classroom in a college setting has been valued in agricultural communications

to retrain students how to use and develop their own creative thinking (Clem, 2013;

Hancock, 2016).

The impact the work environment played on creative expression in land-grant

communication workplaces was explored by Whaley and Henderson (1994). This


44

research found differing perspectives of how leadership and employees impact

creative performance (Whaley & Henderson, 1994). Managers felt their role of

creativity to be idealistic and that creativity remained in control of supporting staff and

co-workers; however, employees expressed the need for freedom and support from

leadership (Whaley & Henderson, 1994). Overall, this research encouraged support

from leadership to influence creativity and provide activities for creative expression

(Whaley & Henderson, 1994).

This review outlines the creative desires in and out of higher education but

have yet to describe what creativity means and factors into discipline use. Therefore,

this study will begin to address the creative needs in the field of agricultural

communications to further coordinate the creative needs in their higher education

programs.


45

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

To conduct research, a systematic process is set into motion to gather,

interpret, and report information (Ary et al., 2019). In doing so, this leads to a limit in

researcher bias and subjective interpretations of the topic and data (Ary et al., 2019).

The scientific method is utilized in this study to interpret the creative needs in the field

of agricultural communications as it allows industry specific requests to be addressed

when the development of creative skills is implemented. In following a constructivist

research approach, a qualitative, phenomenological study was implored to better

understand and explore the creative desires of the agricultural communications

industry. This chapter outlines the steps I took to explore the following research

objectives:







Research Design

As Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated, the constructivist lens allowed

researchers to understand reality through multiple experiences and opinions. The

knowledge of an individual’s constructions is particular to each participants’ views,


46

but it is suggested views become more of a relative consensus through expertise and

interpretation of the constructions (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Participant’s values of

constructivism factor into the results of an inquiry, which influences the research’s

ethics as these values become intrinsic to the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The

constructivist lens factors into this study as it sought to understand the influencing

factors of creativity throughout the agricultural communications profession from the

perspective and personal values of individuals in the industry. Evaluating the needs

requested by the industry can allow educators to prepare students for employment,

while professionals can learn how to encourage creativity in employees and in

themselves. To gain a broad sense of understanding through these professionals, a

qualitative approach was utilized by conducting interviews with members from the

selected population. The use of qualitative research is known to be interpretive as it

helps makes sense of some phenomenon based on the statements made by participants

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). A phenomenological research approach interprets some

experience or phenomena from the participants’ viewpoints based on their descriptions

and explanations of reality (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), which was used in this study.

Using a qualitative research design allows for exploration in a topic area with a

minimal knowledge base (Morse & Richards, 2002). The use of qualitative interviews

allowed for further exploration and description of the important creative skills as seen

by industry professionals.

This study was an example of basic research by setting out to understand

various phenomena within different settings (Ary et al., 2019). This version of basic

research assessed current professionals on their perceptions of creativity within the


47

field of agricultural communications. The descriptive sense of this research allowed

for the explanation of the “what is” aspect for creativity (Ary et al., 2019). What is the

current understanding of creativity? What are the current priorities of creativity in

agricultural communications? What are the current influencing factors of creativity on

employees? This initial interpretation may then lead to further answers of questions on

how to address these creative needs and how to further encourage and develop these

skills.

Population & Sample

This research study aimed to evaluate the perspectives of agricultural

communications professionals associated with various national organizations currently

working within the field. A broad list of 48 agricultural communication organizations

was located through a database compiled by the Agriculture Network Information

Collaborative (AgNIC). The AgNIC serves as a voluntary alliance for those members

seeking to provide collective information related to agriculture topics across the

internet (AgNIC, 2018). This list was accessed through the organizations and

associations section of the University of Illinois Library (University of Illinois

Library, 2018). Upon reviewing the list, many international organizations appeared,

which I removed to target the national discipline of agricultural communications and

narrow the scope of this study. From there, 10 organizations were purposefully

selected based on their agricultural communications focus and connection to the work

under investigation in this research. Purposive sampling yielded a representative

sample of the desired population to provide plausible data sources for a certain

phenomenon (Battaglia, 2008). This allowed a specified population to be identified


48

and selected for research processes (Battaglia, 2008), which incorporated the selection

for agricultural communications professionals in this study.

Within each of the organizations, board members were deemed as the preferred

participants for research subjects and were purposefully selected as they show interest

in the improvement of the field of agricultural communications. Evaluating responses

from these representatives served as a broad overview of the agricultural

communications discipline. Each member of these boards worked in different

segments of the industry and therefore, acted as a sample of this widespread field of

study. Contact information was located for each member through each organization’s

website or through further internet searches. To ensure these members were correct,

the web-based searches included a cross reference to the original organization’s

website where each board member was found.

From the 10 organizations targeted in my study, 111 board members were

found. The total count of board members from each organization varied from seven to

21 members. The graduate committee combed through the list of board members for

pre-existing relationships to determine the initial 2 to 3 members from each

organization to contact (McDermid et al., 2014). These predetermined participants

were contacted first based on the graduate committees’ knowledge of willingness and

capability to participate with the goal to have at least one participant per organization.

Participants from each organization were contacted via email collected from public

domain. The email was crafted from the suggested IRB contact email (Appendix B),

which recruited them for participation. When regrets were sent or a lack of reply was

observed, other board members were contacted from the list of remaining potential


49

participants. A total of eight participants were recruited for the study which data

saturation in a phenomenological study is said to be complete with a sample size of

three to 10 participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018)

Instrumentation

A researcher developed interview guide (Appendix C) was created to guide the

interviews conducted in this study. Factors influencing creativity and assessments

explored in previous literature were examined to develop the open-ended questions

asked during each interview session. Open-ended questions are used in interviews to

allow the participants to describe and comment on the research inquiry in their own

terms which help the researcher understand the topic from their perspectives (Guba &

Lincoln, 1989).

The interview guide was created to further explore each creative approach

defined by Rhodes (1961) through a semi-structured conversation. The participants

were asked to give a background on themselves involving the steps taken to get them

to their current position within the industry. This involved the duration they had been

in the industry, educational background, and previous work histories. Then, the

subjects were asked to contribute their definition and outlook on creativity. Following

a brief definition, the participants were asked to identify characteristics related to each

of the four creative approaches: creative environment, creative person, creative

process, and creative product. With each approach, subjects were asked to identify

strengths and opportunities for improvement within their organization as well as

within their specific segment of the industry. Participants were then asked to

contribute areas of encouragement for creative efforts in each person or work


50

environment. The final piece of the interview was to prioritize the creative approaches

in retrospect to themselves and their line of work.

Procedure/Data Collection

Data collection occurred through standard procedure setup and approved by

the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Appendix A). Data for

this study were collected through one-on-one, semi-structured interviews guided by an

interview guide. Interviews are an appropriate data collection technique as they

provide an opportunity for participants to speak freely about a research inquiry, and

the researcher is able to gain the perspective of the participant from the conversation

and their inflections (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Semi-structured interviews allow for in-

depth responses to preset open-ended questions set by the researcher to guide the

conversation along their research inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).

Once interest in participation was expressed, interviews were scheduled and

conducted through phone or Zoom calls. Interviews lasted approximately 30 to 60

minutes. Participants were asked to verbally consent to their participation in the

interview and granted permission for the interview to be audio recorded. They were

informed that no harm should be done to them through participation in this study, their

identity would be kept confidential through the use of a pseudonym, and the data

would be published upon completion. After consent was received, the interview

began.

Each interview was recorded through the iPhone application TapeACall for

transcription purposes and to aid in ensuring the accuracy of the conversations

captured. Each interview recording was submitted to the online transcription service


51

Otter for verbatim transcription. Once returned, each transcription was cross checked

against the audio files and edited for inaccuracies made in the original document.

From this point, the transcriptions were ready for analysis. I took detailed field notes

during each interview to document needed contextual information (Creswell &

Creswell, 2018). Following each interview, qualitative memos were written by me to

interpret the responses from each interview and remove researcher bias.

Data Analysis

The process of coding data is an iterative process where the researcher

identifies a set of codes as they emerge from the data to then create themes (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). Following an initial read-through, I coded the transcripts through open

and axial coding. The open coding process was incorporated in the first round of

analysis to develop the original codes within the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The

initial readthrough of the data allowed for open codes to emerge based on statements

made and anecdotes told by the participants. These initial codes I found were noted in

the margins of the transcripts and then labelled in my research journal.

After this initial analysis, each transcript was uploaded into the data analysis

software NVivo 12 to assist in the coding process. During follow-up analysis of the

data, I began to employ axial coding to group codes into themes with the added

analysis of causal conditions and other contextual clues (Saldaña, 2016). This process

of axial coding allowed for the removal of redundant codes and outlined the dominant

themes of the data set in addition to categorizing the codes for each research objective

(Saldaña, 2016). Additionally, I utilized the constant comparative method in the

coding process, where the codes that emerged from the data were constantly compared


52

back to other pieces of data to determine if that segment of data was conceptually the

same as others (Creswell, 2013). The data that seemed to fit conceptually were

grouped together to create themes to answer each research objective. A final step in

the analysis was employed to identify any other underlying codes that needed to be

outlined from the data. This coding process identified two themes for research

objective one, six themes within research objective two, and two themes for research

objective three. Within each theme, multiple sub-themes emerged from the codes

identified that fit within the theme but had their own impact on the data.

Trustworthiness

In qualitative research, establishing trustworthiness, or qualitative rigor is a

critical component in naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As Creswell (2013)

stated, a researcher places trust, confidence and validation in their results by

establishing rigor in qualitative research. Lincoln and Guba (1985) identified four

criteria to ensure trustworthiness in a qualitative study that were used to establish rigor

and trustworthiness in this study: credibility, transferability, dependability, and

confirmability.

Credibility

Credibility in qualitative research establishes a truth of the findings and allows

the experiences and perceptions of the inquiry to be observed from the participants’

responses (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), credibility

ensures the truth and accuracy of the results and conclusions of a study and its inquiry.

This study employed triangulation of data sources and member checking to establish

credibility of this research.


53

Triangulation of multiple data sources leads to credibility by understanding the

context and information collected during a study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Each piece

of data collected in the study should be triangulated to at least one other data source to

ensure its authenticity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this study, triangulation was

achieved through the comparison and analysis of each transcription to each other in

addition to the notes in the my research journal, reflexive memos and field notes

(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This allowed me to understand each particular

phenomenon experienced by participants and if they contributed to the findings or not.

Another element of credibility was established through member checking

industry professionals as suggested by Guba and Lincoln (1989). Member checking is

a process to ensure data quality by asking the participants to confirm my interpretation

and presentation of their experiences (Creswell, 2013). This process is the most

important technique in establishing credibility as it solidifies the accuracy of the

findings and conclusions drawn from the study through participant’s verification

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Transferability

Transferability determines the relatability of the findings and conclusions of

the inquiry to other contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Transferability does not

determine generalizability, but aims to evaluate some phenomena in one context and

assess its application in another context (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The use of purposive

sampling helped establish transferability in this study as the target population and

participants for this study would help obtain the desired information outlined by the

research objectives (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Purposive sampling can be defined as the


54

identification of participants who can provide details in the context of the phenomenon

(Battaglia, 2008).

Additionally, the use of rich, thick descriptions helped describe the

transferability of the study as they allow the reader to further understand the

phenomenon from these descriptive statements provided in the study. These

descriptions give the reader more perspective on the interpretations and findings found

in the study and understand the feelings and experiences described by the participants

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This vivid detail and in-depth analysis allow the reader to

determine the authenticity and transferability of the findings (Creswell & Miller, 2000;

Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Dependability

Dependability offers consistency in the procedures and decision trail I made by

ensuring these same processes could be replicated by another researcher (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). Confirmability and dependability of the study was ensured through an

audit trail I kept that maintained all data sources during the study (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). The data collected for the audit trail included raw data of interview

transcriptions and field notes; data analysis notes which includes initial coding

transcriptions and other analyzed coding documents; my research journal; all IRB

forms and approvals; the semi-structured interview guide; all proposals and versions

of the thesis; and any other relevant information. These listed documents and data

were organized and stored to be easily accessible when I needed them.


55

Confirmability

The confirmability of a qualitative study refers to the support and confirmation

of the results of the study by others (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This confirmation and

support can only be ensured once credibility, transferability, and dependability have

been established (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In order to obtain neutrality on the research,

I had to acknowledge my own perspectives and bias of the inquiry and how my

interpretations may be influenced by my background (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Reflexive journaling assists in this process that allowed me to acknowledge my own

interpretations as well as my thoughts and feelings of the research (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). These comments were noted in the my research journal which aids in the

establishment of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability

(Erlandson et al., 1993).

Researcher Subjectivity Statement

Agriculture has been always been a large part of my life and passion as I grew

up on a family farm and ranch in Northeast Colorado. Being an active member on my

family’s operation played a role in my youth and adolescence as well as into my

adulthood as I was employed for two years with the farm after receiving my

undergraduate degrees. My passion for the industry has always been strong although

was not personally recognized by myself until I tried to pursue other industries and

opportunities during my first year of college.

My desire for the success of the agricultural industry has always been strong

which has ignited a fire in me to tell agriculture’s story to consumer audiences. This

initial drive came during construction of an FFA speech involving the misinformation


56

and misunderstandings that lied within my own small town in Colorado. The need for

better communication between the agricultural industry and consumer audiences

became very apparent in that moment. That realization led me to where I am today: an

agricultural communications master’s student. Studying agricultural communications

has enlightened my views on effective communication tactics. Additionally, this

experience has only begun to help me understand the limitations and opportunities in

the field of agricultural communications.

As some would describe me as a creative person, I had to put aside my own

views on what creativity meant to me and my daily activities. I do believe everyone

channels creativity in their own way and interprets different definitions of what makes

something creative. Emphasizing creativity in the field of agricultural communications

was not my role in this study; my role was to allow the data and participants speak to

me about their perceptions in order to interpret how creativity fits in the discipline, not

in my own life.


57

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Introduction

The purpose of the study was to explore the perceptions of creativity in

agricultural communications professionals and assess their thoughts on creative skills

needed in future employees. By interviewing industry professionals associated with

agricultural communication organizations, this study further explored the influencing

factors of creativity observed in the discipline. Three research objectives guided this

study:







As defined in the literature, the need for creativity in agricultural

communications is apparent as the world continues to grow, the way the world views

food changes, and food production has expanded. Creative communications related to

agriculture continues to be pertinent leading to the development of research objectives

that allowed for further exploration of necessary creative skills as communicators

strive for success.

Eight participants participated in interviews for this study and were all board

members from a variety of agricultural communications organizations. Table 4.1


58

summarizes their organizational board affiliation, their current job type, and their

years of experience in the agricultural communications (ACOM) field. The gender

distribution of participants favored female participants (n = 5, 63%). Participants’

years of experience in agricultural communications had a range of 16 years with a

mean of 17 years of experience. The target audiences for each participants’

communication efforts varied, but the majority were focused on audiences within the

agricultural sector (n = 7, 88%).


59

Table 4.1

Description of participants (N=8)

Pseudonym Gender ACOM Organization Job Description Years of

Experience

Blair Female National Association for

Farm Broadcasting

(NAFB)

Farm

Broadcasting

24 years

Charlie Male Association for

Communication

Excellence (ACE)

Extension

Communications

22 years

Renae Female Association for

Communication

Excellence (ACE)

Communications

Consultant

10 years

Emma Female Communication Officers of

State Departments of

Agriculture (COSDA)

Communications

Director

8 years

Mason Male Agricultural Relations

Council (ARC)

Media

Production

16 years

Noah Male American Agricultural

Editors Association

(AAEA)

Creative Director 23 years

Harper Female American Horse

Publications (AHP)

Editor 24 years

Maggie Female Livestock Publications

Council (LPC)

Graphic

Designer

9 years

Findings for Research Objective One

Research objective one sought to determine the importance participants placed

on creativity in the workplace. In the discussions about the importance of creativity in

the field of agricultural communications, two themes emerged: creativity is important

and impacts on creative development.


60

Creativity is Important

The discussions and descriptions each participant gave pertaining to the

importance of creativity encouraged the need for it. Each participant utilized creativity

in their own workflow and emphasized the need for creative agricultural

communications. Charlie stated, “It’s been my experience that creativity is often

wanted, but creativity can be very messy.” This reference of creativity explains it is

not always a straightforward process or the creative solution may not always be the

best solution; however, creativity continued to be a skill desired by each participant.

As Noah’s company has recently made the decision to transform into digital only, he

explained, “That has made the creative process and the workflow even more

interesting and even more important, because if you want to stand out on Facebook,

you really have to employ your creative juices.”

Mason compared the creativity in agricultural communications to other media

where he explained, “There are industries that are far ahead of where agricultural

communications is today in terms of how they use social and visual media and do it

really well.” When describing the field’s creativity, Mason explained the restrictions

the ag industry places on themselves, “I see the ag comm community is more

conservative and doesn’t seem as creative as one would think.” The need for creativity

in the agricultural communications field is reiterated by subjects in order to compete

with other industries and more effectively reach our audiences.

Even as creativity is a skill needed in communications, Maggie stated that it is

not the only one. “It goes back to kind of balancing ideas and expectations.” Thus, it is

important to know when and how to use creativity well. In addition, the need for


61

creativity is apparent in today’s consumer media as agricultural communicators are

competing for their audience’s time. As Noah explained,

What it means to be creative in this industry has changed. … When a farmer

goes to a mailbox or turns on the TV, they’re not just watching farm stuff, and

they compare what we do to the other media they consume. So that ups the

ante creatively. We have to maintain a certain level of quality.

Impacts on Creative Development

To further explain the influence of creativity, participants were asked to

prioritize the four approaches of creativity for their perceived level of impact on

creative development. The four approaches are the creative person, the creative

process, the creative product, and the creative environment. Each participant had

differing views on how they prioritized these approaches depending on their own

personal values and interpretations of creativity.

For participants who valued the creative product as most important, this

product would be the resulting communication material exposed to the audience. Blair

claimed the product was the most important approach as she explained, “that’s what

everybody’s going to see and probably what people will care about more.”

To participants, the creative process encompassed steps taken to show creative

productivity. The creative process rose to the top of Noah’s priority list as he

described the “process has to start and stop with a deep understanding of the subject

and the audience.” Harper explained the importance of “learning good processes” to

be creative. Essentially, these understandings allowed participants to focus on the

goals of the project and follow the necessary process for proper execution.


62

The creative person stood out to two participants who valued natural creative

talent. Harper explained she sees the potential of developing and teaching creativity,

but the need for natural creative ability is valued in showing high creative

performance. Despite this, her personal evaluation of creativity can be “much more of

an individual struggle.” Charlie expressed the hardships a person can endure when

trying to be creative whether this critique comes internally or from surrounding

people. To summarize the importance Charlie placed on the creative person, he stated,

“I do believe everyone can be creative. I think the difference between the creative

people and the non-creative people, [it] may be a little simplistic…creative people

believe they’re creative.”

In terms of the creative environment, leadership and support stood out to

participants as important components to creating a productive work environment.

Emma valued the entire work team in creating a supporting and trusting environment

to share ideas and brainstorm, which allowed her to be her most creative self.

Additionally, Mason shared his views on the need for the leadership in the

environment to be supportive of the ideas presented and the creative endeavors

undertaken. Without that support, the creative idea may lead nowhere.

Two of the participants, Maggie and Renae, expressed that they viewed the

need for balance between the four approaches to creativity. As Maggie explained how

one approach might have more influence over another, she stated, “They’re just all so

intermingled.” To her, one approach affects another which in turn influences another,

and she saw a need to emphasize all for creativity to take place. Echoing Maggie’s

thoughts, to support this need for balance, Renae commented,


63

The most creative person is going to find the balance between all of those

things. I don’t think anyone over the other is going to be more influential.

Obviously, that’s the ideal situation, [but] you’re not going to find that all the

time.

The participants here did not show a consensus on one approach to prioritize

over another. The emphasis and approach to creativity was dependent on each

individual’s opinion and tactic for creativity. The most common input was about

leadership and environment, but with the evidence presented, the findings cannot

allude to the environment having the greatest impact on overall creativity according to

participants.

Findings for Research Objective Two

Research objective two sought to explore the factors that influence creativity

and were emphasized by employees in the agricultural communications discipline.

When discussing creative factors, six major themes emerged from the data: creative

definition, creative product, creative process, creative person, creative environment,

and additional findings.

Creative Definition

All of the participants referenced many buzzwords to emphasize their ideas of

what makes something creative or stand out. Three main terms emerged as participants

described creativity or things that they felt were creative: novel, appropriate, and

different.


64

Novel

When asked to describe something creative or reference creative ideas, the

words “new”, “novel”, or “unique” stood out as descriptors for something that would

be classified as creative. Blair used these descriptors to share what she felt makes

something creative and explained creative works are “outside the box. Unique and

different. Presented a different point of view, maybe even a little unexpected.”

In order to add creativity to her work, Harper saw value in the idea of novelty

and stated she works at “finding new ways to tell stories” as well as “doing it in a way

that has not been done before.” Charlie embraced the idea of finding a “unique

approach” in how to do a project, as did Emma who described this as, it “brings

something new to the table.” Additionally, Renae agreed with this novel approach and

stated, “Being creative essentially means to me that you do things in a new way and

others find value in that creativity.” Participants explained that the idea of creativity

must not only be creative to you but to the intended audience on the opposite end of

the effort of that creativity. Maggie expanded on the idea of novelty and took it to a

broader outlook of embracing the world around her. She said, “Creativity is finding

unique ways to view the world around you and its problems or situations.” As Emma

explained, for an idea to be creative, it should be novel or have “some ‘it’ factor.”

Appropriate

Many participants also discussed that to be creative, some idea or project

should have that “new” feel; however, as Renae explained, “every idea is not a good

idea.” Renae added that for a new idea to be relevant, it should bring some value to

others. The use of creativity should also have some applications of practicality “or else


65

your creativity doesn’t really have a good foundation” as Emma reinforced.

Additionally, Maggie acknowledged the need for creative works to resonate with their

proper audiences.

In another sense, establishing the need for creativity has a purpose, but not

every situation warrants a creative response. Mason emphasized the necessity to

understand when best to apply creativity as it is not always the best solution. He

stated, “What does it mean to be creative? And then to stop being creative, because

sometimes being creative is not helping.” This was echoed by Charlie who explained

that deciphering between these two concepts are critical. He added, “Not every

project is going to demand a creative solution.”

Different

The word different arose in many conversations with various participants and

was used in a variety of context - different approach, different way, different

perspective, and doing things differently. Many participants elaborated on the idea that

several problems have been addressed before but taking a new approach or angle to an

issue may bring about the creative solution needed to fix the problem. Maggie

described the use of creativity is “finding a new angle for a story, finding a new way

to present a graphic that everybody’s seen before, it can be finding a new way to solve

a common problem in the workplace.” Maggie’s approach to being different describes

the necessity to look at or present something in a different light than has been done

before. Harper agreed and added that her publication spotlights some of the same

people causing the storytellers to find new creative ways to tell the same story. Maggie

further described how the tradition rooted in the agricultural industry causes


66

communicators to use new perspectives and different approaches in order to talk about

the same event, especially sales or conferences.

Some participants also described creative people were different in some way.

Renae referred to a creative person as “someone who is not afraid to be different.”

Charlie echoed this and leveraged the need for a creative person to “try a bunch of

different things”. Furthermore, this idea of being different remains important as Emma

claimed, “it would be something that deviates from the normal.”

Creative Product

Participants also explained that when describing a creative product, it is

important to evaluate what makes something creative. When describing a product as

creative, the terms “novel” and “unique” are often used, as described earlier; however,

two additional sub-themes were found when participants talked about the creativity of

a product: audience connection and subjectivity.

Audience Connection

In order for the end product to have an impact on the intended audience, many

of the participants explained the item presented must make a connection with that

audience. The preliminary evaluation of a creation helped determine its impact on the

audience. When coming up with creative products, Charlie often asks himself, “Do

people like it? Does it connect with people? Do people understand it? Are they

enjoying it?” He went on to explain that in the video and social media world, this

plays a large role in assessing the content’s success. Other participants also noted that

in order to have a connection with the audience, it is critical to understand your

audience. Noah claimed the field of agricultural communications has not always put as


67

much effort into understanding their audiences as they do the subject matter of their

content. He explained the audiences are “ultimately, [the people] consuming it.”

Keeping the audience in mind when creating was important to other participants as

well. Renae commented, “At the end of the day, if your creativity doesn’t make a

connection with other people, then it just kind of becomes stagnant.”

Participants also described what it takes to make this audience connection as

“being entertaining”, “showing your personality”, or adding that “emotional factor”.

Blair discussed the need to have an entertaining factor in an upcoming radio segment

covering conditioned manure. “I’ve got to have some personality. I’ve got to have

some fun. I have to laugh at myself, you know throwing ag facts out there in a fun

way.” Another method the participants used to connect with their audiences was

through emotion. Emma expressed this need as she said, “It’s just really gotta grab me

emotionally…creativity is coming up with something emotional that connects the

reader to whatever the story or project is.”

Subjectivity

In expressing what classifies something as creative, participants also described

personal preferences often are a factor. Many participants expressed difficulty in

making the distinction between something that could be identified as creative versus

not creative because those decisions are often based on subjectivity. Renae claimed

her creative evaluation process as “more instinctual than anything else.” She went on

to explain how her various creativity job functions and constant recognition for being

a creative person have trained her with this instinctual ability. This influenced her use

of subjectivity and personal preference when evaluating various creative efforts.


68

Additionally, Maggie made the comment that “creativity is very subjective” when

explaining that some creative pieces of art may not resonate with her while “others

buy it and hang it up in their house.”

Creative Process

Every participant seemed to have their own approach to the process of being

creative and the steps they take to develop something that may be interpreted as

creative. Four sub-themes emerged as participants discussed the creative process:

problem identification, idea generation, preparation work, and storytelling.

Problem Identification

Many participants described the first step in their creative process was to

understand if there was a problem to address. In order for creativity to happen, Mason

stated he had to ask the question, “Is there an actual problem…that somebody can go

and tackle or a group of people can tackle.” Without establishing the problem, Renae

added, “creativity might…miss the mark completely.”

Idea Generation

Once a problem had been established, time and space for idea generation was a

common element each participant needed. After a problem was defined, Mason then

asked,

How do you come up with ways to solve it or how to approach it? The

creativity part is coming up with ideas for approaches to developing those

ideas in some fashion that can be fleshed out a little bit.

This time for idea generation was viewed by participants as essential “even if they’re

not great ideas or the final ideas,” as Maggie explained.


69

Preparation Work

The next steps in the creative process varied among participants and were

based on their focus in addition to how they individually approach projects. Blair

discussed the multiple creative processes she cycles through in the multiple roles she

plays in her organization. “Coming up with a different interview style for

accomplishing those goals versus what I do on the air in the ag news realm are

completely different processes.” Despite these differences in the creative process,

many participants emphasized the need for some element of preparation before

execution. Harper discussed her need to “plan a script” of how the project will be

completed as well as visualizing how “the project will present itself.” Mason focused

on finding a space and period of time to remove himself from office distractions in

order to develop something creative. For Renae, there was a starting point in the

creative process to “think critically and [answer] those basic questions about who,

where, when, and how and why.”

After adequate time to prepare, the process of project execution came into

effect. Many participants alluded to the typical workflow process. As Noah explained,

“There’s a lot of workflow and production involved in the middle there, which is

pretty standardized across the media landscape in general.”

Storytelling

Some of the participants referred to themselves as storytellers. This attribute

played a role in how they viewed the creative process. Good storytelling can make or

break a project whether it’s in publication or through visuals as well as in print or

online. As Noah claimed, “Everything that you’re doing in the creative process is to


70

serve the storytelling.” Not only does the story have to be well organized and

presented, but the “art still has to serve the story,” Noah added. As far as telling the

story of agriculture, Maggie also noted the storyteller attribute of agricultural

communicators has been exhibited as she sees really creative anecdotes regarding

agriculture.

Creative Person

In describing what makes a person creative, there were few ideas that were

referenced repeatedly by the participants. A multitude of topics and descriptions

relating to the creative person were mentioned in the discussions resulting in six sub-

themes: say yes! (be open-minded), understanding your personality, being confident to

take risks, motivation and inspiration, and additional factors.

Say Yes! (Be Open-Minded)

To be a creative person, all of the participants explained that a person needs to

be “open-minded” or “willing to try new things”. As Mason explained, the capability

of an individual to show true creativity surrounded this idea that they should “be

willing to try things, run experiments, [be] willing to say, ‘yeah, let’s try that.’” Mason

further added that being open-minded has a cycle starting with kindergarteners as they

“are willing to try anything and they’ll say yes, and they’re willing to do it all.”

However, he explained that as people get closer to adolescence and their teenage

years, their willingness to say yes decreases. “When you’re an eighth grader, yes is

beaten out of you.” After the high school era, Mason explained that the door to

creativity begins to reopen and people are encouraged to say yes again.


71

Sometimes, as Maggie explained, the person does not even have to say yes to

the idea. She stated, “Even if it’s not a good idea, at least hear it out and talk about it

because there might be parts of that idea that are good and could help.” Some

workplace leadership may not be willing to say yes, but both Mason and Blair

described that a change in leadership can lead to more open-minded opportunities and

flexibility to try new ideas and expand creativity.

Understanding Your Personality

A few participants suggested the need for individuals to understand their

personality in order to fully utilize creativity. An individual’s personality impacts how

they show creativity and should guide them to understanding how they fit in a creative

environment. Blair discussed the need for this understanding as specific personality

types may tell an individual that they are in the wrong role. Additionally, embracing

one’s personality can inform them of the type of environment they work best in. For

example, Emma stated, “Introverts need time before a brainstorm to think through

ideas. And extroverts need brainstorm time. But depending on which side of that

energy flow you’re on, that can be often overlooked.” As Renae added, this distinction

of introvert versus extrovert effects much of the creative process, but she encourages a

balance of the two:

As an introvert, you spend a lot of time reflecting and listening and observing

and that stimulates creativity. Whereas on the other hand, a person who is

extroverted is more expressive. So, their creativity is a little bit more obvious.

To further interpret one’s personality, participants explained it is important to

understand where and how that individual is creative. Being creative in one aspect


72

may not always allow that same individual to be creative on a completely different

topic. Maggie explained,

If we graded a fish by if it could climb a tree, then we would think that all fish

are stupid…There are some people who definitely think outside of the

box…and are really artsy and innovative…I think you can be creative in other

aspects, whether it’s a new way to manage workflow, maybe it’s writing copy.

There are several ways that a person can be creative.

Being Confident to Take Risks

Some participants also explained that in order to be creative, a person must be

somewhat of a risk-taker in addition to having the confidence and knowledge to know

that not every idea or project will carry this creative element or fit within the goals of

the project. Emma explained, “[a creative person will] not be afraid to take a certain

amount of risks to see if something will flush out.” Additionally, Maggie explained

their comfort level comes back to “how confident they feel in trying new things.”

Being comfortable in sharing your creativity and your personality also affects one’s

ability to be creative. Emma acknowledged her fear of “having a room full of very

important people look at you and say, ‘come up with a creative idea.’” She knows

herself well enough to admit she would need time to brainstorm prior to being put on

the spot.

Once the person takes the risk, Renae added that creativity “comes with trial

and error.” She added that failure sometimes happens, and if a creative effort does not

accomplish its goal, “you have to be willing and able to accept that. There’s going to

be failure along the way as your creativity is developed.”

Moreover, a critical view on an agricultural communicator’s creativity is

something each person in the field deals with. Renae shared, “Everyone is going to see


73

the work that you do,” and explained that while this is not easy, it is important to be

confident in yourself. Blair echoed this sentiment and shared,

You have to have a lot of guts because you’re putting your own personality

and character on the line for everyone to listen to and critique every

day…You’re doing your job in front of masses. And that means you make

mistakes in front of masses.

Participants explained the need to have risk-takers in the field brings about more

creativity and outside approaches even when the opportunities for criticism remain.

Motivation and Inspiration

The motivation and inspiration of the individual was emphasized by many of

the participants. For some, the motivation for their productivity came from external

factors such as caffeine or the capability to travel to farms and ranches. Others

described the need for art or music to act as a motivating factor. Blair described

motivation to cause a person to “inherently or internally desire information.” For

others, motivation comes in the form of confirmation from others about their creative

abilities. Renae described her need for confirmation of her creative abilities. “You’re

around people who say, “yeah [you’re creative], it gives you confirmation. This is

what creative looks like and I can be more creative over time.”

The ability to be inspired provided some conflicting responses from the

participants. Renae argued communicators know how to find the necessary creative

inspiration. “Whether that’s listening, whether that’s reading, whether that’s a

conversation, whether that’s…getting exposed to art or being around an artistic

environment based on beauty and nature. We innately understand that’s important to


74

stimulate our creativity.” This concept of understanding ourselves and knowing what

it takes for us to be creative stood out to Renae. Additionally, various organizations

have witnessed a need to find inspiration and have conducted group discussions to

look at outside work examples and collaborate on those outside ideas. Both Harper

and Charlie recalled times when their organization created this collaborative

environment based on outside work examples they could build from. Charlie

explained, “There’s a quote that great ideas are not born, they’re stolen…Professional

development can really give you ideas and insight on how to do things.”

Additional Factors

Other descriptors in characterizing a creative person factored into each

participant’s overall outlook of creativity. Noah emphasized the need for an individual

to have talent before they can be creative. He explained,

The creative person in this industry, and in journalism in general, has to come

to the table with some of that already. You either have an eye or you don’t.

You either have a way to turn a phrase or you don’t. You’re not going to learn

that. You’re not going to be taught that.

On the contrary, Emma explained that she believes creativity is not just “something

you are born with…I think you can develop it over time with the right factors in

place.”

Harper expressed that she felt a creative person should have an inquisitive

sense and is someone who can “ask hard questions and relate to them and find out

what makes people tick.” In Blair’s line of work, she valued the need for a creative

person to be entertaining and utilize humor when discussing more mundane topics.


75

Finally, Renae discussed how a creative person has a recognition for their own

creative abilities. Whether through verbal acceptance of their skills or assessing their

creativity based on their award recognition, she explained this component emphasized

creative performance. Renae aligned the need for a balance between the criticism

agricultural communicators often receive and recognition of their creative ability. “We

have to be recognized for that ability, that talent, that skill that communicators

possess. It has to be respected…Otherwise when you’re subject to a lot of

criticism,…that tends to stifle creativity.”


When examining the creative environment, there were many items participants

discussed that affect someone’s progress in the workplace. According to Mason,

having a creative environment is essential to building creativity. “To be creative and

start tackling things that have a problem, you need the resources, you need the

leadership to be there, and you need the space and time.” Four sub-themes emerged

that impact the creative environment: physical space, tangible tools, time, and team.

Physical Space

The creative space of the participants made a difference in their creative

performance. The physical space each participant preferred reflected their definition

for what it meant to be creative. Mason described his former office as encompassing

the epitome of today’s definition of a creative space. He described the office had,

“open conference rooms, whiteboards everywhere, mobile desks that moved

around…There were lots of toys, people had like puzzles and games and all sorts of

things.” As his description continued, he elaborated on the idea that this space was


76

designed to encourage creative thinking in addition to being a space without structure

to remove the norms of a traditional work environment. Mason added that these

creative spaces are developed to give employees a get away from the constant

interruptions of a formal office setting.

Providing a space where people can be creative also resonated with Renae as

she discussed creating a classroom environment that promoted creativity in students:

It involves more than just a classroom environment or a teaching environment

where people are just listening all the time. There needs to be interaction

amongst participants who are in a classroom learning about creativity. It takes

exposure outside of the four walls of a classroom.

Participants also discussed the impact personality differences have on how

people work and their preferences in their work environment. Harper acknowledged

her work environment reflects her solitary personality as she needs “a very quiet,

organized environment…surrounded by things that make me feel creative.” In that

sense, Maggie related the type of work environment of a person may just be dependent

on the mental space of the person at the time. However, a participant’s environment

may differ if the individual works in a remote location or attends an office regularly as

Maggie noted, “In a remote office, it’s kind of nice sometimes to be able to pick up

and go to a completely different space if I’m really stuck.” She explained this ability

to relocate in a permanent office may not provide the same opportunities causing the

environment to “sometimes feel maybe a little stale.” The concept of the physical

space it takes to be creative may have varied among participants but maintained its

status as an important influence on creativity.


77

Tangible Tools

In order to feel like an individual can be creative, many of the participants

noted the right tools are critical. They explained these physical tools make a big

difference in creative execution. According to Mason, the right tools “can be as simple

as I don’t have the right colored paper…or I don’t have the software for it, or I don’t

have the desk space for it.” From small to big items, participants discussed how not

having access to the necessary resources impacts the success of a creative project.

Additionally, an adequate budget can impact the performance of a project, sometimes

leaving the best creative project to fizzle out. Participants emphasized the need for

adequate tools to have successful creative execution.

Time

When discussing what someone needs in the field of agricultural

communications to be their most creative, a very common response among

participants was time. Brainstorming takes time, and the full development of an idea

takes time. However, participants explained how fast-paced, deadline driven culture of

agricultural media, and media in general, has put pressure on the element of time. As

Harper emphasized, “one of the biggest limitations to creativity is time. We live in a

deadline related industry, so we don’t always have the time to be creative.” Maggie

added that the fast-paced work environment and heavy content distribution required of

the field sometimes make people ditch super creative ideas. “At some point, you just

have to do it. It has to be done by this time… [so, you have to] just consciously make

it a part of your process.”


78

Team

Every participant also discussed how the team around an individual has a huge

influence on the work culture and creative environment for that person. Additionally,

they explained the element of team has a huge impact on the success of creative

performance. Emma defined creativity as “a way of work that helps teams get the best

out of everyone’s skill sets in the room… [The team could be] leadership all the way

to your technical staff.” They described how the impact of team sets the stage for

creativity. To further break down the team, two sub-themes emerged from the data:

supportive leadership and collaborative coworkers.

Supportive leadership. All of the participants discussed how the leadership or

management of an organization wear many hats within the creative environment. The

first hat they put on often involves spreading the vision and goals of the organization.

As Renae explained,

What I believe makes creativity flourish in that environment starts with

leadership. The person who is in charge of the vision and casting that vision

should allow the people who will execute the work to be able to share ideas

without criticism and judgment.

The leadership of the organization sets the stage for how the rest of the employees will

work. She added that to guide creativity, the leadership “should be known for their

ability to be creative.”

The next hat leadership wears is support. Participants explained how the

creative environment involves a strong level of support from leadership as it reinforces


79

creative efforts and encourages projects to move forward. Mason outlined this support

required from leadership:

Management or leadership has to have support mechanisms in place to allow

for this creativity to occur…and also help lead the efforts to do that…[the

leadership] has to be actively involved. That might mean giving money,

people, resources, whatever.

Without the leadership’s support, project ideas are often turned down which may lead

to stifling someone’s creativity.

The last leadership hat participants discussed was a training aspect

management is in charge of, especially to explore what creativity is and when to use it

with employees. Mason explained leadership should encourage a regularly engaged

conversation and process of “understanding how to tackle problems, understanding

how to approach solving or thinking about those creative solutions.”

Collaborative co-workers. Participants also noted the need for supportive and

collaborative co-workers to encourage creativity in the workplace. Maggie noted that

much of an individual’s creativity comes from themselves; however, she recognized

the value of having creative people around you. “I think anytime you get a group of

people together who can talk about things and come up with various ideas, that opens

up another level of creativity when you bring in more viewpoints.” This emphasizes

the value co-workers add to the creative environment. Some participants discussed the

influence co-workers have on brainstorming activities. Harper especially valued this

collaboration process. “[It] is really important to me for creativity, because other


80

people see things differently than I do. …You’re combining your knowledge and

resources and coming up with different ways.”

The influence co-workers have on product development also plays a role as

participants noted they provide feedback and spur ideas from each other. Charlie

mentioned it is helpful to receive comments about his work that “are honest with me

about my creativity, whether it’s so creative or whether it works or not.” The ability of

participants to view other’s work and provide feedback can inspired their own work.

Charlie preferred the idea of “healthy competition” that allowed everyone to “take that

and build on that type of thing” and encourage an inspiring environment amongst co-

workers.

Additionally, participants discussed the trusting environment is shaped by the

team they worked with. Creative ideas are great, but without a welcoming

environment to share your ideas, it would be difficult to run ideas by others around

you. Emma discussed the importance of having a trusting environment to share ideas,

because “sometimes [the ideas] are not so good and having a trusted environment

where you can come in and bounce ideas off of each other” factors into the success of

creative ideas.

Additional Findings

An additional factor for creativity mentioned by participants was creative

thinking. The innate sense to think through a project and internally visualize the

outcome was emphasized as a needed skill. The use of creative thinking was explained

as the ability to brainstorm many ideas but then reduce the options to determine the

best one. As Mason explained,


81

A lot of people think creativity is you’re coming up with a ton of ideas. That’s

only part of it because the other half of it is you got to eliminate pretty much

all the ideas at some point, because you can only run with one or two or three.

Summary

The findings for research objective two resulted in a variety of influencing

factors described by participants when it comes to creativity. These factors were

described to have either a positive or negative influence on one’s ability to be creative

or creativity itself. Some of the factors could result in both a positive and negative

influence on creativity depending on the situation. Table 4.2 shows the influence each

factor can have.

Table 4.2

Positive and Negative Weights of the Influencing Factors on Creativity

Positive Influencing Factor Negative

X Novel

X Appropriate

X Definition

X Audience Connection

Subjectivity X

X Problem Identification

X Idea Generation

X Preparation Work

X Storytelling

X Say Yes! (Be Open-Minded)


82

Table 4.2 Continued

Positive Influencing Factor Negative

X Understanding Your Personality

X Being Confident to Take Risks

X Motivation & Inspiration

X Talent

X Inquisitive

X Entertaining & Humor

X Recognition

X Physical Space X

X Tangible Tools

Time* X

X Leadership X

X Co-workers X

X Creative Thinking

* expressed as the greatest negative influence on creativity

Findings for Research Objective Three

Research objective three sought to explore the perceived assessments of

creativity throughout the field of agricultural communications. The evaluation of

agricultural communications professionals for their skills and ability to be creative led

to productive discussions about the strengths and continued needs of the field. Two

themes emerged from these discussions: strengths and opportunities.


83

Strengths

When asked where the field of agricultural communications as a whole excels,

participants noted that agricultural communicators are creative and “do a pretty good

job in general relative to the size of our budget and other limitations.” Emma made

this statement in reference to the small communications teams many organizations

have and the broad list of tasks each are in charge of. From this sense of the skills

relative to the goals and capabilities, two main sub-themes emerged related to

strengths within the field of agricultural communications: storytelling and ag-to-ag

communications.

Storytelling

Participants noted the skills it takes to be labelled as a good storyteller have

become more apparent in recent history. According to Maggie, communicators have

seen the need for better storytelling “out of necessity based upon ag illiteracy.” The

ability to understand and relate to the intended audiences has increased, as Harper

stated, “Knowing who your readership or viewership is and finding the little nugget of

information that draws somebody in.” Maggie added, being able to tell agriculture’s

story is “really where our creativity shines.”

Ag-to-Ag Communications

Participants also noted the unique ability of agricultural communicators to

connect with agricultural audiences. Maggie stated the ability ag communicators have

with communicating in ag-to-ag settings is their specialty. “We understand our own

language and we get our own motivations.” The example she gave was the “Why I

Farm” commercial series produced by Beck’s Seeds that are “very emotional and they


84

hit home with the target audience.” She had the feeling others outside of the industry

might not develop the same emotional connection with these commercials.

Opportunities

Participants’ conversations about improvement opportunities for the field of

agricultural communications discussed a variety of topics and ideas. Each participant

was very passionate about their insights, and three sub-themes emerged from their

discussions: technology adaptation, creativity in agricultural communications, and

continuing education.

Technology Adaptation

Participants noted that adapting to new technology has brought many

challenges as well as excitement for the future. The addition of technology platforms

and increased equipment opportunities arose as two topics that were commonly

discussed by participants.

Addition of technology platforms. The multiple digital platforms in today’s

age has presented with some interesting challenges for the agricultural communicators

in this study. Many communication departments for these organizations have a small

team, and the fast-paced environment has begun to require “more integrated [content]

to go across more platforms.” This factor has caused Maggie some detrimental effects

on her creative process. She stated,

I feel like on some level, the speed at which people are asked to work and the

level of content that people are asked to put out can sometimes be detrimental

to the creative process, because at some point…it just has to be done by this

time.


85

The growing number of platforms on which the field now communicates

through have changed the way information and content reaches audiences. Noah

observed this change early on which led his company to transition out of the print-

world and to become digital only. He noted this change is out of the necessity to adapt

to “more of a consumer look. [Since, content] has to be high quality and compete with

the other things that compete for their time." Mason, however, saw this change in the

field of agricultural communications take on a different look. He explained,

The whole notion of social media and digital media was slow to take off. And

in the last five years, it’s now a core component of the media world. [But]

there’s still a notion that print is the number one thing in some ways.

According to participants, the technology adaption for agricultural communicators

varied.

Increased equipment opportunities. Participants also noted the growing

opportunities for equipment adoption and updated technology feeds into the

excitement and fears traditional agricultural communicators have. Harper has been

hesitant to learn video production, “but I feel like it’s an important part of remaining

viable in this industry.” Additionally, she feels leadership should play a role in

“providing really good equipment” to pursue new skillset opportunities.

On the other hand, Noah and Charlie both keep looking to the future

technology and what impact it will have on their production. Charlie paid attention to

“what new capabilities are coming up online” for his video production to be current

and how new functions can change his projects moving forward. Mason has used

drone footage and is excited to go “out in the field with an 8K drone that will allow


86

me to come back to the office with print ready assets instead of just video ready

assets.” New technology for him will speed up his workflow and provide new

opportunities to acquire content.


According to the participants in this study, the potential for creativity in

agricultural communications is vast. Participants discussed four sub-themes on the

creative potential of agricultural communicators: utilizing expertise, content creation,

traditions, and ag-to-consumer communications.

Utilizing expertise. Participants discussed how the small communications

departments within the agricultural industry have presented challenges to being able to

accomplish as much as they need to. Noah acknowledged the fact that communicators

feel the need to wear many hats from editors, writers, photographers, and everything it

takes to complete the various projects laid on their desk. One thing communicators

may not do as much of is “lean into the expertise of an art director or videographer,

someone who really knows the ins and outs of what they’re doing.” Noah’s main point

was, “being a utility player is great, but at some point, we have to lean into expertise.”

Additionally, participants noted the use of agencies provides another

opportunity for new ideas and outside approaches. Mason outlined the nature of an

agency is to “be really good at coming up with unique or interesting approaches and

they know how to distill them and run with them.” Emma added that the use of an

agency as they “can drive a little bit of outside perspective into your project.”

Content creation. Participants also noted the busy lifestyles of agricultural

communicators along with a deadline driven field factor into their ability to acquire


87

content. Both Harper and Emma discussed the need for buffer room in their schedules

to get out of the office in order to collect assets, get their stories, and take the photos

they need. Harper would prefer more freedom to get out of the office and “gather

information in person out in the field rather than having to rely on a phone interview.”

This experience, she explained, would help her build a story and understand the

subject’s expressions better. Additionally, the need for additional time built into her

schedule is important to Emma, who stated, “That one time that we got out of the

office [to collect assets], it is a huge payoff.” These participants expressed a desire for

more freedom in their schedules to collect these photos or videos they need to use in

later content.

Traditions. Participants discussed that the agricultural industry is rooted in

tradition; however, many participants did not necessarily see this as a good thing.

When describing what makes something creative, Noah instead described what is not

creative, as these are things he commonly sees in his line of work.

I don’t want to see the farmer in the field holding a clump of soybeans. I don’t

want to see a guy standing by a tractor with a hat pulled down over his face so

that there’s a shadow and I can’t see his eyes.

Harper echoed this sentiment and explained agriculture’s content has become very

predictable. Additionally, Mason related the tradition of the industry to “historic

inertia”; this is what people know.

The traditions and predictability of the industry feed into the type of

communications material used. As Mason explained, “Look where ag media was 20

years ago, it was pretty much all print. Come to today, it’s still a lot of print.” He


88

described this is due to the strong financial incentive print has as many businesses are

still willing to pay for a print ad. Participants also noted this traditionalism carried

over from the conservative nature of the agricultural industry. Mason explained, “Most

of it is really the culture and background that people in agriculture have bleeds into ag

comm, and so that conservative, more restrained approach to things bleeds into

creativity and innovation.” Maggie discussed a need for balance between tradition and

where the industry should be headed:

It’s kind of like the saying roots and wings. You have to find a balance in the

ag industry of respecting the tradition and where you’ve been but finding a

way to continue to find new ideas, new ways of looking at things and

implement them in a way where they can resonate with multiple generations.

Ag-to-consumer communications. A few of the participants’ discussions

referenced the different audiences that agricultural communicators cater to.

Understanding the agricultural circle gives us firsthand knowledge of delivering a

message that resonates with an agricultural audience. However, the ability to

understand the needs and desires outside of that circle may not have the same effect.

Maggie suggested agricultural communicators may lack a connection with consumer

audiences. “I don’t know if we’re very good at telling stories outside of our

bubble…Maybe some of our communications are lacking connection and empathy to

people who aren’t exactly like ourselves.” Emma noted a way her team addresses this

disconnect. “We always learn a lot whenever we can get the right focus groups of

consumers together because they care about things that we don’t care about.”


89

Continuing Education

The topic of continuing education efforts to benefit yourself and your company

arose throughout many of the conversations with the participants. According to

Harper, “It’s your responsibility to improve as a person and invest in yourself, not

only for yourself but also for your company.” Continuing education was discussed

through the sub-themes of soft skill development, creativity training, inspiration from

outside sources, and technical education.

Soft skill development. Blair, particularly, noted the need for soft skills

development. With 24 years of experience in the field, she has seen the need for

additional soft skills training in today’s young professionals. Some of these skills are

as basic as “how to talk to each other, how to shake hands, or make eye contact.” The

biggest point Blair made in reference to the need for soft skills was the inability to

network appropriately and make connections with those around you. “If you don’t

connect and you don’t have to talk to them, you don’t know how to even deliver a

conversation in person. I don’t know how you can move beyond that.”

Creativity training. Some participants noted that in order to be creative, one

has to know what creativity is and how to be creative in general. Whether in a school

or work setting, participants discussed the need to understand creativity and believe

there is an opportunity to teach it. Renae stated, “I do think it’s teachable. There has to

be creativity in determining how to help other people be creative.” Similarly, Mason

commented if agricultural communicators don’t know what it means to be creative,

“they’re not able to really focus on the problem.” Creativity training can occur in

school settings or at work. Mason encouraged the idea of “a formal class in creative


90

thinking and problem-solving skills” at the college level to supplement the learning

environment where creativity begins to happen. However, once those skills are

learned, Mason declared, “I strongly believe that people have to practice.”

Inspiration from outside sources. The ability to be inspired without a large

work community proved to be more difficult for the smaller communications

departments and more freelance based participants. Some participants explained that

continuing to stimulate one’s personal creativity enhances an individual’s creative

work and incorporates opportunities for personal growth and learning. With a smaller

organization, Noah described his company has found several “free and reduce cost

ways to stay inspired and to learn.” His recommendation for those who are struggling

is to create your own work environment through these resources. “Some of the best

inspiration, some of the best knowledge, some of the best skills I’ve acquired over the

last two or three years have come from 2-hour webinars or following a podcast.”

Technical education. The final piece participants discussed in continuing an

employee’s education comes in the form of technical education. As participants

mentioned, technology is constantly changing, and there are various rules outlined by

communications professionals and the fields in which they work. Emma was adamant

about the idea that “every land-grant university should have an ag communications

program.” She also felt technical skills in these programs need to be a major focus.

Emma felt there was a lack of technical skills being emphasized in college programs,

and explained, “That is going to totally hamstring every lofty goal we have of trying to

convince the average consumer that producers are doing the best for the consumers

themselves.”


91

Participants also discussed that in the work environment, technical education

encourages daily production, especially when employees are trying to advance their

own skillsets. Harper had a desire from her leadership to “help employees get the

knowledge and equipment they need.” She explained, sometimes employees need

writing seminars or photography workshops to understand the most recent trends or

further develop their skills. Additionally, Emma discussed the need to understand all

of the rules to help someone be more creative, whether that be design rules or

understanding the AP Stylebook. She explained how these rules impact her ability to

be most creative. “Whenever you start knowing the rules well enough that you can

break them with confidence, then you start to have a creative project.”

Summary

In summary, the findings for research objective one allowed participants to

describe the importance creativity has for the field of agricultural communications.

Further exploration of the approaches to creativity showed the participants did not

agree on one cohesive way to approach creativity within the field of agricultural

communications. Each approach was influenced by a person’s own perceptions of

creativity, how they viewed creativity as a whole, and the internal and external

influences of creativity.

The findings for research objective two explored the influencing factors of

creativity participants discussed. Six themes emerged from the study with a variety of

sub themes coordinating with each theme. The influencing factors expressed by

participants addressed the four Ps of creativity and made specific connections from the

statements of participants (Rhodes, 1961).


92

Research objective three sought to understand the participants’ perceived

assessments of creativity within the field of agricultural communications. The findings

for research objective three brought up two themes: strengths and opportunities. The

strengths of creativity highlighted specific skills described by participants. The

opportunities for agricultural communicators showed areas where improvements and

focus can increase creative skills. These assessments acknowledged where participants

felt the field of agricultural communications was in terms of creativity. Table 4.3

encompasses the entire list of themes and subthemes found in each of the three

research questions.

Table 4.3

Summary of Themes for All Research Objectives

Research Objective 1

Creativity is Important

Impacts on Creative Development


Creative Definition

– Novel

– Appropriate

– Different

Creative Product

– Audience Connection

– Subjectivity


93

Table 4.3 Continued

Creative Process

– Problem Identification

– Idea Generation

– Preparation Work

– Storytelling

Creative Person

– Say Yes! (Be Open-Minded)

– Understanding Your Personality

– Being Confident to Take Risks

– Motivation and Inspiration

– Additional Factors:

o Talent

o Inquisitive

o Entertaining

o Humor

o Recognition


– Physical Space

– Tangible Tools

– Time

– Team

o Supportive Leadership

o Collaborative Co-workers

Additional Findings

– Creative Thinking


Strengths

– Storytelling

– Ag-to-Ag Communications


94

Table 4.3 Continued

Opportunities

– Technology Adaptation

o Addition of Technology Platforms

o Increased Equipment Opportunities

– Creativity in Agricultural Communications

o Utilizing Expertise

o Content Creation

o Traditions

o Ag-to-Consumer Communications

– Continuing Education

o Soft Skill Development

o Creativity Training

o Inspiration from Outside Sources

o Technical Education


95

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, & RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview

This study sought to explore the perceptions of creativity within the field of

agricultural communications as well as prioritize the factors that influence creativity

needed in future employees. The need for creative skills within the field of agricultural

communications has been repeated throughout recent studies in the discipline (Corder

& Irlbeck, 2018; Irlbeck & Akers, 2009; Morgan, 2010). Creative skills should also be

incorporated in the curriculum and within student development for students preparing

to enter the field of agricultural communications; however, employers do not see

creativity as a skill being taught in undergraduate programs (Irlbeck & Akers, 2009).

Thus, this study aimed to determine the factors influencing creativity observed in the

industry to inform curriculum development in higher education.

The findings of this study have provided rich, contextual descriptions on the

importance for creativity to be present in the industry and examples of influencing

factors of creativity to answer the study’s research objectives:








96

The following discussion will present conclusions from the findings of this study and

how they relate to previous literature on creativity research. From there, the

implications from these conclusions will be presented along with recommendations for

practice, teaching, and research.

Conclusions

Research Objective One

Interpreting the perceived importance for the use of creativity was fairly

straight forward as creativity acted as a core component in the participants’ daily

activities. Although perceptions of what creativity meant differed, there was

reinforcement from participants for the need for creativity as agricultural

communicators work to compete with mainstream media. Ultimately, the participants

declared creativity as an important skill needed in all agricultural communications

professionals which aligns with previous research, such as Clem (2013) who found

creativity as an important soft-skill desired throughout industry professionals.

Additionally, participants echoed the sentiment voiced by faculty and students who

both valued the need for creativity and understanding what that meant for themselves

and the profession (Gibson et al., 2018; Hancock, 2016; Morgan, 2010, 2012; Morgan

& Rucker, 2013). This need for creativity support Guilford’s (1956) original statement

about the need for more creative thinkers and encouraging creativity in students.

Therefore, creativity needs to remain an area of emphasis in higher education and

throughout the profession as new challenges continue to be addressed.

Rhodes’ (1961) impression of the four creativity approaches effected the

outcome and processes of creativity. In discussing the four approaches to creativity,


97

participants brought up varying opinions on what effects a person and their creative

abilities. Each person had their own perspective of creativity based on personal

opinion and their priorities of creativity in the work they perform. Thus, the responses

gathered align with the confusion the creative discipline has when evaluating and

defining it. With varying definitions of creativity (Runco & Jaeger, 2012), Mooney

(1963) stated the approach to creativity will be dependent on individual creative talent.

Although there was not one approach to be prioritized over the others, individual

creative approaches factors into one’s creative expression. The variety and support for

each of the creative approaches supported Rhodes (1961) initial evaluation for each

approach to creativity. Moreover, a person should understand what impacts their own

creative talent and where their creativity fits best within their work environment,

personality, and creative process.

Research Objective Two

Research objective two aimed to explore the factors that affect creativity

throughout the field of agricultural communications. The varying responses of

participants fell into one of these six themes: creative description, creative product,

creative process, creative person, creative environment, and additional factors.

Creative Description

To describe something that is considered creative, participants depicted ideas

and products as novel, appropriate, and often with a different approach to it. However,

these descriptions did not explain their personal definitions of creativity just common

adjectives used in describing creativity or creative works. Similarly, Runco and Jaeger

(2012) identified creativity typically includes a sense of originality and effectiveness.


98

Without originality or uniqueness, something can be labelled as being conventional,

mundane, or commonplace (Runco & Jaeger, 2012, p. 92), and appropriate uses of

creativity fit the needs of the audience and project presented. In addition to being

novel and effective, Cropley (2001) added an ethical component to complete genuine

creativity. These descriptions of creativity also resonate with the creative descriptions

used in each of the four Ps of creativity and through further explanations of each

approach (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Besemer & O’Quin, 1986; Rhodes, 1961;

Sawyer, 2012; Urban, 2003). Thus, identifying what makes something novel,

appropriate for the intended audiences and goals, and deviating from the normal will

increase the creativity and impact of communication materials. Focusing on these

attributes when developing something of a creative nature may allow agricultural

communication professionals and educators to further answer the question of “what is

creative?”

Creative Product

Although an element of subjectivity continued to present itself throughout the

discussions, most participants referred to the need to create a connection with the

intended audience when describing creative and effective agricultural communications

efforts. Whether communicating within the agricultural industry or amongst consumer

groups, the need to understand what resonates with the intended audience was

reiterated by the participants. Sometimes it takes creating a focus group or interacting

with the audience to understand how to best connect with them. Charlie and Noah

even found the need to pay attention to mainstream media or watch popular YouTube


99

videos to understand what people are viewing and how the mainstream media

connects with the common public.

Kurtzo et al. (2016) identified the need for audience identification on

agricultural platforms in addition to evaluating who they are, how they operate, and

how to best reach them. Additionally, Runco and Beghetto (2019) found the need for

audience attribution in creativity as the social circle of the audience can impact how

creativity is perceived. Moreover, the addition of social media has encouraged

communicators to better understand their audience reach and engagement in addition

to developing better messaging strategies (Loizzo et al., 2019). The evaluation of a

creative product is enforced from Rhodes’ (1961) depiction that a creative product

comes from an idea developed into tangible form. Although the idea of audience

connection was not specifically described in the Creative Product Analysis Matrix,

this connection and emotional response desired can be described using the matrix from

the overall goals of the project with terms like surprising, exciting, meaningful,

effective, and elegant (Besemer & O’Quin, 1986). By understanding how to connect

with the intended audiences, agricultural communicators may influence more audience

engagement and reach leading to more transparent conversations and comprehension

between the agricultural industry and the public audiences.

The element of subjectivity came from the inability to define and verbalize

what makes something creative and were often related to personal implications of

creativity. According to Simonton (2012), the personal implication of surprise when

assessing creativity caused creativity to be evaluated with a subjective viewpoint in

addition to novelty and effectiveness. This addition of subjectivity complicates


100

creative evaluations if not defined, which will cause confusion in the field of

agricultural communications without a discipline specific definition of creativity.

Measurements for each approach of the four Ps of creativity have been developed to

address and minimize subjective evaluations of creativity (Rhodes, 1961). This study

drew from Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989), Besemer and O’Quin (1986), Sawyer

(2012), and Urban (2003) to outline evaluations addressing the influencing factors of

creativity for each approach. Using these evaluations to measure creativity can reduce

the subjectivity element until more discipline specific measures have been developed.

Creative Process

In relation to the creative process, most of the participants’ responses

incorporated discussions about the preparation it takes to be creative. The creative

process outlined by Sawyer (2012) was encouraged throughout participant discussions

of what steps need to occur to develop something of the creative nature. These steps

discussed with participants also supported the mental process of thinking and learning

Rhodes (1961) used to describe the creative process. Problem identification allowed

participants to see if there really was a problem and what it might be, which is in line

with Sawyer (2012) who agreed that problem identification was the first step in the

creative process. Then, idea generation and time to brainstorm were prioritized by

participants to develop a broad list of ideas addressing the identified problem, which

utilized their divergent thinking skillset (Guilford, 1956) and continued to follow the

steps to the creative process outlined by Sawyer (2012). This idea development stage

allows room for both good and bad ideas to flourish and encompasses a lot of the

creative thinking on the part of the individual. From this point, the best ideas should


101

rise as Sawyer (2012) and Guilford (1956) suggested convergent thinking helps target

the best option. There was, then, an element of preparation work before seeing the

project through. As suggested by Sawyer (2012), participants noted a plan of action

should be determined in order to visualize the final result and then plan for its

implantation. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) sees each of these preparation stages as

contributing factors to the flow of innovation, much like the participants. These initial

steps act as critical components of the creative process for agricultural communicators

and help spur creative thinking and action. To encourage the creative process, the field

of agricultural communications should acknowledge these steps and take time to

identify the problem, generate ideas, and plan for action.

Some of the participants referenced themselves as storytellers and talked about

how their job was to tell agriculture’s story. No matter the communication type, the

presentation and organization of the story, in addition to the visuals, added to how the

information and story was received. Participants needed to acknowledge their

storytelling process and interpreted if the reader would connect with the story by

recognizing the interests of the audiences. In previous agricultural communications

research, a variety of skills have been identified to effectively tell agriculture’s story:

understanding how to interview for a story, telling a story through pictures, finding the

necessary story, and using storytelling to bridge the disconnect of the public with

agriculture (Clem, 2013; Kurtzo et al., 2016; Morgan, 2012). Additionally, the process

of storytellers can be viewed as an example of creative problem solving (Diyanni,

2016; Sawyer, 2012). These skills need to be acknowledged in each agricultural

communicator’s process to create the story readers want to read and viewers want to


102

watch. Building on personal storytelling skills and utilizing creative skills will

enhance the connections made with the intended audiences and leave a greater impact.

Creative Person

Rhodes (1961) originally stated the creative person can be described using

many traits, attitudes, habits, and beyond. This study allowed participants to elaborate

on their own descriptions of the creative person which can be referenced back to

Rhodes (1961), Urban (2003), and many other researchers who have characterized the

creative person. In describing characteristics of a creative person, participants in this

study mentioned being open-minded, being confident as a risk-taker, being able to

understand their own personality, and finding motivation to be creative. By having an

open mind, an individual is more open to out-of-the-box opportunities and has more

willingness to take risks. Urban (2003) described the need for openness, tolerance of

ambiguity, and readiness to take risks as components of someone who is more creative

in his componential model of creativity. This also falls in line with previous

researchers who described creative individuals should be open-minded and tolerate

ambiguity (Dellas & Gaier, 1970; Marksberry, 1963) as well as be a risk-taker (Blair

& Mumford, 2007; Dacey, 1988; Sternberg, 2006b; Torrance, 1966). Being able say

yes to opportunities gives a person more comfortability in taking risks which leads to

good creative problem solvers, which the field of agricultural communications needs

to address the challenges they are faced with every day.

To accept one’s creative personality, that person will understand what works

best for them creatively and what does not. Emma even acknowledged that she used to

consider herself an extrovert, and after 10 years in the industry, she came to terms with


103

her need for individual time to be productive and creative. As participants noted, an

individual should recognize their personality type to understand the lifestyle and

career they fit best in and where they can be the most creative. After Sawyer (2012)

evaluated many explanations of a creative personality, he determined no one

personality type is prone to creativity. It has more to do with the attitude,

comfortability, self-actualization and confidence of the creative individual (Dellas &

Gaier, 1970; Marksberry, 1963; Urban, 2003). Additionally, understanding personal

motivations also factor into the creative abilities of a person. When assessing

motivation, both an intrinsic and extrinsic motivation affected creative abilities and

individual drive (Amabile, 1996; Hill & Amabile, 1993; Torrance, 1988; Urban,

2003). For a person to acknowledge their personality, the individual can better

recognize their comfortability, attitudes, and motivations to being creative and

showing their creative abilities. Every person is creative in their own way; however,

their creativity depends on their open-mindedness, risk-level, comfort to show their

personality and creativity, and their motivations needed to be creative.

With the other factors affecting the creative personality, participants also

included talent, inquisitiveness, entertainment and humor in addition to recognition

and awards for creative achievements. Displaying natural talent and interest of a topic

can suggest initial ability and intelligence as well as reference a more creative type

(Dellas & Gaier, 1970; Marksberry, 1963; Sternberg, 1997). Additionally, a creative

person often adds entertainment and humor to their display of personality

(Marksberry, 1963; Rogers, 1961; Torrance & Hall, 1980). To judge a creative person

off of their awards or providing individual recognition for their creative achievements


104

has been a common practice in assessing personal creativity (Feldhusen & Goh, 1995;

Torrance, 1966) yet is a highly subjective practice. Urban’s (2003) componential

model of creativity addressed each trait of a creative person described by participants

and covered the broad list of associations to the creative person Rhodes (1961)

outlined. Each of these characteristics prioritized by agricultural communications

professionals should be emphasized in creativity research and can give insight into

personal ability. It is important to recognize where each individual excels and

encourage those traits for more creative communication efforts.


Creative press defined by Rhodes (1961) referred to the connection between a

person and their environment which impacts one’s productivity and perception of the

environment surrounding them. Several factors and their overall impact on creativity

were expressed by participants when describing the external elements of their creative

performance. Each of these factors can also be traced back to the Work Environment

Inventory (WEI) (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989). Participants discussed the need for

a good physical environment, tangible resources, and adequate time for creativity to

flourish and projects to excel. The physical space a person prefers to work in reflects

their personality and needs to stimulate personal creativity. Outside factors of

creativity, including their physical environment, reflect the freedom a person has when

being creative and impact a person’s mental space for creativity (Amabile &

Gryskiewicz, 1989; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995; Lin, 2011). A person must have some

freedom and comfortability in their physical space to be creative and productive.


105

Supporting a physical environment that promotes creativity and is preferred by

employees will enhance an individual’s creativity.

The tangible resources needed within the creative environment attribute to

potential completion of creative projects. Whether it is software, paper, or colored

pencils, creative performance can be suppressed without the proper tools.

Additionally, project budgets also factor into the ability employees have when

completing creative projects. As Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989) stated, access to

adequate resources has an impact on the creativity within a work environment.

Therefore, resource limitations should be acknowledged when developing creative

project ideas.

The concept of time was a repeated limitation to personal and work creativity

throughout participant discussions. Additionally, the field of agricultural

communications was often referenced as a “deadline driven industry” impacting each

individual’s ability to show creativity in their projects. Amabile and Gryskiewicz

(1989) evaluated time pressure as an environmental obstacle to creativity in the WEI

as it often hinders creative expression, and this was echoed as a huge detriment to

participants when being creative. Although agricultural communicators want to do as

much as possible, they must recognize they cannot do it all. It is important to

recognize the time pressures on individuals and acknowledge the limitations to how

much work an individual can achieve. Then, leadership and employees can reach an

agreement on what can be done and with what levels of creativity that will then allow

the prioritization of tasks and projects needed with the most creative focus.


106

The element of team left a large impact on creativity individually or in a group

setting. Some participants even relied on the entire team to spur their most creative

ideas. Leadership often had the largest impact on creative performance, because

without the support and guidance of effective leadership, projects were abandoned,

and creativity was stifled. The effect of leadership on creative performance and work

culture has a lasting impact by setting the stage for empowerment and community

(Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Spitzer, 2013). Additionally, workplace leadership

should implement training and provide extrinsic motivation for creative development

in employees. Motivation and training from leadership feeds individual creativity

which then influences organizational innovation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Fischer et

al., 2019). The leadership and management of an organization should acknowledge

their role in creativity and innovation to guide and support employees. Having an

active role in the creativity and innovation, leadership will be more prepared to foster

a motivating and supportive work culture.

The need for co-worker collaboration also impacted each of the participants in

their creative process and creative inspiration. The need to challenge, trust, and help

co-workers was incorporated within the environmental stimulants to creativity in the

WEI created by Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989) and were also reflected in the

response of the participants. Developing a collaborate and supportive environment

within one’s work community enhances creativity. Additionally, a trust component

with co-workers and workplace leadership was desired by participants to share ideas

and work together. This component of trust was included for creative stimulation in

the WEI (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989). The need for collaboration and trust as well


107

as guidance from leadership connect critical stimulants of creativity from the work

team. Even though these work communities are often small, maintaining open

communication and collaboration may continue to stimulate creativity.

The outcomes of research objective two allowed researchers to understand how

agricultural communications professionals perceived the factors that influence

creativity. Each of the factors found supported the use of the four Ps of creativity

(Rhodes, 1961) and the evaluations developed to measure each of those creative

approaches (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Besemer & O’Quin, 1986; Sawyer, 2012;

Urban, 2003). The main takeaway from this objective is agricultural communications

organizations should recognize each of these factors and provide opportunities for

creative enhancement and limit hindrances to these factors.

Research Objective Three

Research objective three sought to explore the perceived assessments of

creativity throughout the field of agricultural communications. When asked about

what the field does well in terms of creativity and where they can improve,

participants offered many responses. Two themes were used to organize participant

responses: strengths and opportunities.

Strengths

The field of agricultural communications has improved their storytelling

abilities due to the gaps in knowledge found in the average consumer (American Farm

Bureau Federation, 2018). The need to tell agriculture’s story has risen as a need in

this field and has been a recent focus in agricultural communications efforts.

Additionally, recent studies in agricultural communications have found a need for


108

good storytelling and evaluated what it means to be a good storyteller (Clem, 2013;

Kurtzo et al., 2016; Morgan, 2012). This need for storytelling will continue to be a

priority in connecting with consumers and agricultural audiences. The use of

storytelling has and will continue to impact how the creative process is executed by

agricultural communicators whether they follow all of the steps in detail outlined by

Sawyer (2012).

Additionally, the ability to communicate with others in the agricultural

industry stood out. Agricultural communicators know how to find that connection to

draw in agricultural audiences in addition to drawing upon their emotions. The

comparison of reaching agricultural audiences versus others from an agricultural

communicators’ perspective has yet to be analyzed in research. However, common

sense brings realization that this is no surprise. As Maggie referenced, it is easier to

target emotions that are more familiar than others. Maintaining these attachments to

the agricultural audiences are important as the initial audiences often lie within the

industry.

Opportunities

Many of the participants were very passionate about what the field of

agricultural communications needed in terms of creativity and opportunities for

improvement. Technology has brought more online platforms in addition to advanced

technology to utilize in agricultural communications. The combination of print and

digital platforms has offered challenges for the field of agricultural communications as

information is desired on all platforms. Some agricultural audiences still utilize print

media heavily while other audiences rely on more digital platforms, which adds to the


109

workload of employees. Technology adaptions are not happening in unison leaving

communicators with more work and the same resources of employees and time.

Additionally, there was excitement of how more technological advances will affect

creative production. Kurtzo et al. (2016) noted technology impacts the field as changes

occur often and rapidly causing communicators to struggle to keep up with new

trends. Acknowledging the demands on time, resources, and knowledge that added

platforms and new technology has on each individual addresses the opportunities and

obstacles technology has on the work environment (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

Agricultural communicators and their organizations should acknowledge their

available resources and understand that not everything can be done, in addition to

being creative, with the current employee numbers and access to resources, which will

allow for a more productive and creative work environment.

The opportunities for creative enhancement in the field of agricultural

communications got participants excited as to how things can change. Finding more

opportunities to get out of the office to collect photos and videos to use in upcoming

communications materials was a major need stated by participants. This is not only a

motivational tactic for employees to get out of the office but allows them more variety

for materials needed. Additionally, the need to rely on expertise within or outside the

organization arose to save time and allows employees to lean on experts to do what

they do best. Most participants referenced the need to rely on advertising agencies to

bring in an outside perspective and bolster creative thought. The use of outside

perspectives and expertise knowledge within agriculture communications has not yet

been observed in research. Yet, this offers encouragement for professionals to


110

understand their own limitations and minimize efforts of being a one-man band to try

and do it all themselves.

Participants noted the view of the agricultural industry being rooted in tradition

both literally and figuratively has a lot of merit. Agriculture, in general, carries

tradition in its essence. However, agricultural media needs to respect this tradition

while maintaining a competitive edge against other consumer media. In order to

encourage consumers to rely less on traditional views of agriculture (Specht & Buck,

2014), the need to utilize new media techniques should be given priority (Morgan,

2012). This traditional view of agriculture is important, but consumers will never take

the industry seriously if they do not see farmers and ranchers as scientists and

businessman. Moving away from the industry’s “historic inertia,” as Mason named it,

will provide opportunities for a more mainstream and consumer-focused look.

Additionally, this will allow us to better understand the needs of consumer audiences

and will push the field’s thinking outside of their own bubble.

A final opportunity for creative improvement discussed by participants

included possibilities for continuing education. Mason referenced the idea that there is

always room for improvement and finding new ways for continued education is one

way to do that. Continuing one’s education enhances the resources, knowledge, and

ability of an individual encouraging the creative person, reinforcing the creative

process, and enriching the creative environment in order to improve the creative

product overall (Rhodes, 1961). The type of education desired by participants included

soft skills training, creativity training, specifically, and education on technical skills.

Basic soft skills training encourages professionals to invest in themselves for their


111

personal success in their career and life. Telg et al. (2019) discovered a need to

continue to implement social skills training in agricultural communications programs

to contribute to the many skills students require after graduation. Without the soft

skills needed to show professionalism and network with others, agricultural

communicators will have a harder time connecting with their audiences and delivering

effective agricultural messages.

The need for continued creativity training will allow employees and

professionals to understand what creativity is and how to better implement it in the

future. Some participants discussed that creativity is important but knew not everyone

could pinpoint what that meant. When asked to define creativity, Gibson et al. (2018)

found the definitions of creativity to have some variation, but instructing the

workforce on creativity offers some guidance to creative thinking in the workplace

(Donnelly, 1994). Implementing creativity training in the workplace may enhance

creative thinking and skills utilized for innovation and progress.

As technology continues to advance and communication channels are varied,

technical education is becoming increasingly important. With many technologies,

these changes are happening more rapidly than have been observed in the past and

education is required to stay up to date. Technology continues to be recognized as a

challenge for the field of agricultural communications as it rapidly changes the way

people communicate (Kurtzo et al., 2016). The need for technical education is critical

and may be encouraged in the workplace, through higher education, or from personal

endeavors. If agricultural communicators do not stay current, mainstream media will


112

outpace the communication efforts for their intended audiences’ time and attention,

and the agricultural industry will fall further behind.

Research on creativity in the field of agricultural communications is very

limited and has not yet scratched the surface on the opportunities for investigation.

Hancock (2016) and Gibson et al. (2018) began to conceptualize a discipline specific

definition of creativity and understand the need for creativity within agricultural

communications higher education programs. Both Hancock (2016) and Gibson et al.

(2018) suggested the need to determine the perceptions of creativity from industry

professionals and understand the factors that affect their creativity.

Discussion

When the idea to research creativity was first brought to my attention, I

thought what a cool opportunity but had no idea what I was getting myself into. Many

researchers and philosophers claim to the fact that creativity is important but

maintaining its elusive clarification and mystery is what upholds its quality. There is

no doubt creativity has a mystique about it that is hard to break down but doing so

opens up a whole new world of understanding and interpretation.

At the beginning of this research, creativity played a role in my life as being

something I could achieve when I felt like I was capable. Every person to me was

creative in some way; it just depended on the individual’s attitude and confidence in

one’s self. This perspective can be translated to the field of agricultural

communications. Creativity is needed throughout the discipline and this research

supports that, but how creativity is used in each individual varies. The variation of

creative application depends on one’s skill and confidence whether it be in video


113

production, graphic design, or writing a story. Agricultural communicators have

specific skills but how they use their skill with a creative twist is something that can

be elaborated and encouraged to maintain the effective quality of communication

materials.

This is where further research and my personal views began to be impacted.

Conceptualizing creativity is not easy. Researchers have worked hard to explore

creativity in specific applications and through various disciplines. There is also a lot of

research to filter through to determine what has actually been understood. I thought

there should be a way to define, conceptualize, interpret, and evaluate creativity; I just

was unsure what that might look like. Creative expression can be found in just about

anything the eye can see, but that interpretation will be different for just about every

person who sees it. Understanding this variation and subjective perception is the first

step in further conceptualizing creativity. From there, defining characteristics and

influences on creativity help mold what creativity is and what happens when one

shows creative qualities and expression.

Ultimately, this research has shown me that making a subjective concept

appear more objective is difficult but doable. There can be a clear line between critical

and creative thinking. There can be a clear line to what is or is not creative. However,

in order to draw lines like such, there needs to be a definition or assessment in place to

allow people to know where the line has been drawn. This needs to happen in

agricultural communications. With multiple audiences and communication methods,

identifying and assessing what may or may not be creative for different audience types

and organizations can bypass other attempts to be creative. The field of agricultural


114

communications needs to continue to recognize the importance creativity has on the

role it plays within the agricultural industry.

This study allowed communicators to recognize the influencing factors of

creativity within their own work and throughout the work of the discipline. By

interpreting these stated influencing factors of creativity, individuals and organizations

can assess what factors are being used well or assess what needs to be changed to

encourage creativity in one’s work. This also can provide organizations with

opportunities to determine what the different terms like novel and appropriate mean to

them while addressing personality and environmental factors of creativity. Higher

education classrooms can also use these factors to prepare students with adequate

creative skills for their future employment.

This study was also able to determine the perceived assessments on creativity

by participants. The classified strengths and opportunities described in this study can

provide some reflection and direction for organizations on where their focus should

shift and how to effectively produce creative communications to whomever their

audience might be. Acknowledging where an individual aligns with each of the

opportunities presented then encourages specific assessments of the needs of an

individual or organization. As one of the participants stated, there is always room for

improvement and that is not shy to the need for creative development. Focusing on

creative needs and opportunities should not be a hindrance for the field of agricultural

communications in order to achieve the individual and organizational goals defined. It

may be a difficult task, but once someone dives into creativity, they will be amazed as

to what can be found and how to influence creative growth.


115

As for my own perception of creativity, this exploration has led me to a more

holistic approach. My views on individual creativity have not changed but how that

creativity can be analyzed has. Through the application of the four Ps of creativity,

each approach has a different influence on creative expression and what results from

an individual’s creativity. Creativity is not one dimensional, but rather a definable

multi-dimensional platform that can be altered with minor changes to an approach.

Recommendations

Based on participants’ responses, creativity within agricultural

communications plays a critical role, but what it looks like is not straight forward in

the field. The results and conclusions of this study have led the researchers to develop

several recommendations for practitioners, higher education, and future research.

For Practitioners

Creativity is continuing to be recognized as a critical skill and component of

agricultural communications professionals. Organizations should recognize this need

for creativity and implement components within their organization to support the

creative needs within the 4 P’s of creativity. These creative needs of employees and

organizations will be outlined in the following statements.

As the field of agricultural communications encompasses a broad variety of job

descriptions, each organization or sector in the field should define what makes

something creative to their aspect of the discipline. As an organization, this can

support the values and mission of the organization. By developing this meaning as a

factor within the field, the value of creativity can be presented with a unified voice as

Kurtzo et al. (2016) suggested. These definitions should outline what makes


116

something novel, appropriate, and different in addition to other factors affecting their

definition of creativity.

Now, what makes something novel to one person may not be novel to another.

The appropriateness of one project may not have that same attribution in another

project. Identifying the different hats practitioners wear can allow them to

acknowledge the difference in the meanings of creativity in each new project. One

direct application for understanding novelty may be to utilize mentoring between a

more seasoned employee and one newer to the discipline. Additionally, outside

perspectives can also factor into the mentor component. This mentorship will create an

understanding of what may have been attempted or accomplished in previous history

and can introduce outside knowledge of ideas that have been considered novel in other

disciplines. Collaboration between coworkers with different perspectives allows for

understanding and evaluation to define novelty for the organization or the current

project at hand. The appropriateness of ideas can also be evaluated in these mentor

sessions or through collaboration groups to determine the effectiveness of projects.

The need to create an audience connection to communication materials was a

supported result from the participants in the study. As practitioners in agricultural

communications, it is imperative to understand how to connect with agricultural

audiences as well as audiences removed from agriculture. To comprehend how to

make these connections, participants should find ways to understand what is important

to the desired audience by creating focus groups or partaking in discussions with these

people. Even as tradition offers a lot of value to the agricultural industry, agricultural

communicators must remember their target audiences and produce material that will


117

resonate with them. These communicators should focus on developing communication

materials with their specific audiences in mind.

To support the creative process, organizations need to recognize that much of

the creative process occurs during the beginning steps of idea creation. Time should be

built into the workflow for idea generation and problem recognition. These

opportunities will encourage more creative problem solving in agricultural

communicators. From there, practitioners need to create a plan of action for the project

before diving in. This supports the use of creativity and will help communicators

develop their storytelling skills. Overall, encouraging these steps in the creative

process will lead to more creative success.

To support a creative person’s needs, it is important to first understand them as

a creative person. As a creative person can have a variety of personality characteristics

(Sawyer, 2012), the need to understand them as a creative person is very critical.

Leadership, co-workers, and others working with a creative person should understand

how they work and what they need to be successful and creative. This can include

time to brainstorm, time and ability to collaborate with others, or outside motivation

and inspiration. Additionally, the creative person must remember to stay open-minded

and comfortable in taking risks as participants acknowledged these needs. Both

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be limiting factors of creativity emphasizing the

need for personal inspiration and motivation. Often these ideas for inspiration lie in

professional development opportunities or outward collaboration. Agricultural

communicators should look outside themselves and even outside the field for creative

inspiration and ideas.


118

There is also a need to help the creative person acknowledge that they

themselves are creative. The attitude and expression towards creativity of a person can

be detrimental if they don’t see their own abilities. Opening up the door for this

realization through small projects or outside activities may help a person come to

acknowledge their abilities. Additionally, offering personal recognition and support

from leadership and a coworker perspective can be encouraging to the creative person

as well.

The need for a creative environment was emphasized by participants and

recommendations for the creative environment have a large impact. Creating a

productive creative space for individuals encourages the creative needs of employees.

The physical spaces for employees to be creative should be developed from feedback

on employee needs and desires as to what helps and allows them to be creative.

Additionally, leadership should work to provide employees with the adequate

resources necessary to complete projects required in the field of agricultural

communications. Giving employees an unlimited budget with unlimited access to

resources may not be realistic or reasonable, but management should work with those

agricultural communicators to understand what resources may be needed for various

projects and how to provide the support necessary for projects to be completed.

An additional resource that is hard to provide unlimited access to is time. In

fact, time may be considered the greatest limiting factor to creativity. With this in

mind, employees and leadership should work together to determine what can be

accomplished, with what type of creativity, and to prioritize creative needs with the

time available to the organization and to the individual. These conversations may lead


119

to the need for less job responsibilities or more employee resources, and leadership

should be ready to acknowledge those needs and adjust accordingly.

To establish a creative community, leadership and employees should work

together to establish a supportive, collaborative, and trusting environment for ideas to

be shared freely. In leadership, guidance, support, and training should occur to create a

welcoming environment for productivity and creativity. Co-workers should be willing

to collaborate and work together to be competitive and successful as an organization.

A component that needs to be included to connect many of these previous

pieces of creativity in the workplace is communication. An employee needs to be

provided with an opportunity to communicate with supervisors about their creative

process. However, it is the duty of the employee to communicate their personal

creative process and creative needs. This allows coworkers and leadership to

understand what it takes to develop and express creativity for an individual. The

critical piece a creative person needs to embrace is the role of communicating what

makes them be creative and how they show creativity. By expressing this personal

workstyle of creativity to management, the employee can be supported in their

creative endeavors and will be encouraged to further develop creative ideas.

As technology continues to change, it is important for agricultural

communicators to stay current with their relevant expertise and with the current trends

of the public. To be an effective communicator, an individual must observe how the

public is communicating with each other. Additionally, agricultural communicators

should understand new technology when it fits into their realm of use and expertise.


120

As agricultural communicators try to wear many hats, they should rely on

outward expertise when feasible. These experts may include advertising agencies,

other people in the office, or through some other network. Other perspectives may

offer new insight to a problem or project that was not previously seen.

Continued education offers a lot of value in the field of agricultural

communications as technology is changing along with how consumers perceive the

agricultural industry. Developing soft skills in agricultural communicators through

education or in the work environment enhances professional skills and will build basic

networking skills needed in the work environment. Both organizations and higher

education should add these soft skills trainings to enhance communication and

connection between employees and the audience.

Creativity training is needed to understand what creativity is and how to use it.

Creativity trainings should be implemented throughout higher education through

workshops, implementation within current coursework, or as a fundamental class. This

class should focus on teaching the basics of what creativity means and developing

these creative skills desired in professionals. Creativity trainings should also be

implemented in organizations to establish unity on what creativity means to the

organization and how it is expected to be used.

Technical education for agricultural communicators is critical in being

successful as a large portion of the field relies on understanding rules of design,

writing style guides, how to take a good photos or videos, and how to effectively

utilize media. Since each of these elements offer frequent changes throughout the

communications realm, it is important to stay up to date on the changes and audience


121

perceptions for each of these communication needs. Individuals should continue to

invest in themselves as well as having their organizations invest in them by adding

different elements of technical education to their professional development.

Organizations should provide available support for individuals to attend related

conferences to further enhance these skills. Each individual needs to evaluate what

components they are lacking in and work to improve their knowledge and expertise.

As the discipline of agricultural communications encompasses a broad array of

practitioners, the researcher must acknowledge specific creative influences may differ

between each spectrum of the discipline. For teachers, their perspective of creative

application resides in the way they encourage students to use creativity and learn to

the best of their ability. For extension educators, creativity revolves around how they

provide knowledge and information to producers as well as consumers that resonates

long-term knowledge and information use with the audience. For professionals within

the field, creative use enhances their ability and effects the outcome of presentation

and impact on all audiences who see their materials. Each of these career types must

acknowledge their use of creativity. These influencing factors and opportunities will

have different impressions on the needs of an individual and how they use creativity.

Additionally, each factor use affects their abilities in different ways. The creative

types should acknowledge how they use creativity, communicate it, and continue to

align the goals for themselves and their organizations with the use of creativity.

For Higher Education

Jackson (2006b) encouraged the use of creativity within higher education to

encourage students to think more deeply and allow them to understand their own


122

talents and creativity. Capitalizing on creativity within agricultural programs in higher

education can influence students creative thinking abilities to address the countless

issues faced by the industry (Pretty et al., 2010).

To start, higher education programs should determine what creativity is to

them and what it should look like throughout course instruction in addition to aligning

these evaluations of creativity with desires from the professionals in that discipline.

For agricultural communications, interpreting desires of creativity should start with

this study and understand the importance of audience connection as well as the other

influencing factors of creativity. Course instruction should discuss audience

perceptions and how to potentially assess the desires of audiences. Additionally, it is

important to observe how the audience communicates and factor that into course

instruction to prepare students for future agricultural communication roles.

To support the needs of the creative process, educators should focus on the

beginning stages of creativity to prepare students to identify the problem and

participate in idea generation. Course instruction should also include steps to prepare

for project execution. Once these creative steps occur, technical education should

ensue to encourage students to put their creativity into action. Moreover, instructing

creative storytelling processes is essential in delivering effective agricultural

communicators to the workforces. Higher education should include storytelling

courses and processes into course instructions.

Encouraging creativity in each person lies in the hands of educators to help

each student where they are creatively and what their creative strengths are.

Interpreting one’s own personality affected by creativity is essential in understanding


123

where they will fit throughout the field of agricultural communications. Instruction

should include elements of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to help a student discover

what works best for them to initiate their creativity. Additionally, elements of

inspiration, whether within the field or in other departments, should be included

throughout the educational programs to give students a large opportunity for creative

learning and development throughout the higher education process.

Higher education programs should work to establish a creative culture in and

out of the classroom from administration down to colleague collaboration with

students. Both administration and faculty act as leadership in these programs to

encourage creative success in students. Learning environments should be conducive to

creativity in addition to adding outside elements for creative interaction. Faculty and

administration should work to provide adequate resources to students as they discover

their own creative factors and inspiration. Personal restrictions within students may

arise, but educators should provide what they can to students to reduce limiting factors

of creativity within the classroom. To further encourage a creative environment,

educators should provide collaboration opportunities for students to share ideas

without judgment. In order to achieve this open environment, educators should do

their best to break down judgmental walls to create a welcoming environment of

motivation, support, and sharing.

To keep up with the ever-changing technology updates and advances, learning

opportunities also need to be made available to faculty as they are relaying technical

information to students. The job of educators is to provide relevant information to

students, so they are prepared and successful once they enter their careers. Educators


124

should be provided with support and opportunities to attend related conferences or

access other educational opportunities, so they are aware of the most relevant

technologies and updates to the discipline. Additionally, educators should also rely on

creative experts when necessary and incorporate outside learning opportunities into

class instruction.

Higher education should incorporate soft skills training into programs to

prepare students with all of the necessary skills they will need after graduation. These

skills are critical in establishing connections and networking with other professionals

and future colleagues. Additionally, building these types of connections will not only

allow students to be successful with other professionals but will also enhance their

creative abilities to connect communication materials with intended audiences.

To encourage creativity in young professionals, creativity training and

education should be included in higher education so that students can identify what

creativity is, what it means to the discipline, and how to effectively incorporate

creativity into their daily roles. There are not only opportunities to incorporate

creativity within classroom instruction, but creativity training may also be included as

a stand-alone class throughout programs within higher education. This will further

instruct students on how to use creativity and how to do it well within their specific

disciplines.

Understanding what creative thinking looks like also brings up the need to

explore critical thinking in the classroom. Critical and creative thinking have their own

place within one’s mind but are often merged together in one process. Curriculum in

the classroom should encourage both types of thinking as individuals but find ways to


125

merge the two together to allow for a student to further explore the depths of their

mind.

Technical education also has strong influence in agricultural communications

programs. The success of agricultural communicators is dependent on their ability to

use these technical skills for effective communication to their intended audiences.

Agricultural communication programs should include a large variety of technical skills

into their course instruction to best prepare students for future careers. Once these

students understand technical skills, creativity will be used more effectively to create

agricultural communications materials.

For Future Research

With limited research on creativity in the field of agricultural communications,

opportunities for future research are truly limitless. Future research should look further

into establishing a discipline specific definition of creativity for higher education as

well as the agricultural disciplines. As creativity research discusses a multitude of

factors affecting creativity, it would be of use to support the results of this study and

further investigate the factors influencing and limiting creativity throughout the field

of agricultural communications. Additionally, this field encompasses a large variety of

communication channels; research should break down each channel to understand

these factors with a more targeted population. Future research should also evaluate the

influencing factors of creativity within an advertising agency population. With the

addition of the freelance community in this field, this study should be replicated to

better understand the factors influencing creativity from their point of view.


126

Aside from these needs for research, this study directs researchers to the next

needed exploration of creativity within agricultural communications. This study

explored what some of the influencing factors of creativity were throughout different

workplaces within the field of agricultural communications. From here, research can

be used to understand these influencing factors from leadership versus employee

perspectives. This will allow for further understanding of these influencing factors

from different perspectives but may also shine a light on differences in importance

rating for the factors. Additionally, this comparison can allow the disconnect or lack

thereof on creative expectations to be discovered between management and employee

perspectives.

To further explore the influencing factors of creativity described in this study,

it would be beneficial to determine the level of impact each of them have on creative

production throughout multiple organizations. This would allow for further

clarification on what impacts creative ability and may lead to opportunities for

encouragement or limitations on those factors.

This study uncovered the need to interpret the creative desires from

agricultural audiences as well as audiences removed from agriculture. Future research

should assess preferred communication channels as well as creative implications of

these different audiences. Additionally, future research should monitor communication

channels to understand the creative communication messages involving agricultural

and scientific communication topics that resonate with different audiences.

As critical and creative thinking can often be merged together or even

confused (Diyanni, 2016), providing further clarification and explanation for what


127

these mean in the context of agricultural communications will enhance the ability for

agricultural communicators to use them well. Further exploration for the use and

interpretation of each of these throughout the discipline and in the classroom can lead

to better teaching habits in addition to expanding the capabilities of communicators.

Other research should further evaluate the use of the 4 P’s of Creativity on the

field of agricultural communications. This assessment should be conducted on both

students and faculty in higher education to understand their perceptions of factors

influencing creativity. This evaluation would provide a more holistic view on creative

factors observed in agricultural communications. Additionally, further research should

be conducted to understand the biggest impacts on creative development within the 4

P’s of Creativity, which would instruct educators on how to better train creativity in

their students and allow organizations to understand the biggest factors in work

creativity.


128

REFERENCES

ACE Background. (2019). Association for Communication Excellence.

https://www.aceweb.org/ace-background

AgNIC. (2018). AgNIC governance and by-laws.

https://www.agnic.org/sites/default/files/agnic_bylaws_2018_approved.pdf

Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), 221–233.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.2.221

Amabile, T. M. (1986). The personality of creativity. Creative Living, 15(3), 12–16.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: An update to “The Social Pscyhology of

Creativity.” Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1998). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(123–167), 77–87.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the

work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–

1184.

Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work

environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231–253.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28753-4_102546

Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity

and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001

American Farm Bureau Federation. (2018). The Food Link. https://www.fb.org

Andenero, A. C., Baker, M., Stedman, N. L. P., & Weeks, P. P. (2016). Research

priority 7: Addressing complex problems (T. G. Roberts, A. Harder, & M. T.

Brashears (Eds.)).

http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/AAAE_National_Research_Agenda_

2016-2020.pdf

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. A. (2019). Introduction to

research in education (10th ed.). Cengage Learning U.S.


129

Barbot, B., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. I. (2011). Assessing creativity in the

classroom. The Open Education Journal, 4, 58–66.

https://doi.org/10.2174/1874920801104010058

Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education,

25(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696156

Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 51(3), 478–485.

Barron, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of

creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 76–98). Cambridge

University Press.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality.

Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 439–476.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical

review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology

Monographs, 132(4), 355–429. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430

Battaglia, M. (2008). Purposive sample. In Encyclopedia of survey research methods

(p. 646). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947.n419

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity:

A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,

1(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73

Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure

and a comparison among products-Three novel chairs. Creativity Research

Journal, 11(4), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1104_7

Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1986). Analyzing creative products: Refinement and

test of a judging instrument. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 115–126.

Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and

synthesis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 15(3), 158–178.

Bethune, G. W. (1839). Genius. Casket, 8, 59–69.

Blair, C. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the

unoriginal? Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(3), 197–222.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01288.x


130

Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver (2nd ed.). W. H.

Freeman and Company.

Bruner, J. S., & Minturn, A. L. (1955). Perceptual identification and perceptual

organization. The Journal of General Psychology, 53(1), 21–28.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1955.9710133

Buel, W. D. (1960). The validity of behavioral rating scale items for the assessment of

individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44(6), 407–412.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046652

Burnard, P., Craft, A., Cremin, T., Duffy, B., Hanson, R., Keene, J., Haynes, L., &

Burns, D. (2006). Documenting ‘possibility thinking’: A journey of collaborative

enquiry. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 243–262.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760600880001

Cech, R. J. (1969). Creativity: Harmony, Not Noise. Journal of Applied

Communications, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2117

Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. (1960). Alternate

Uses. Sheridan Psychological Services.

Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., & Guilford, J. P. (1958). Consequences. Sheridan

Psychological Services.

Clem, C. A. (2013). Exploring the competencies, skills, and abilities needed for

agricultural communications students: A delphi study [Unpublished master's

thesis]. Texas Tech University.

Corder, J., & Irlbeck, E. (2018). Agricultural communications skills, abilities and

knowledge desired by employers compared to current curriculum: A literary

review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 177–193.

https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04177

Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the

40-year follow-up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and well in

the new millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 283–291.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3rd ed.). Sage

Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative,

and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.


131

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.

Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.

Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M.

A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 83–114). Hampton

Press, Inc.

Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth

using? Roeper Review, 23(2), 72–79.

Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and

educators. Kogan Page Limited.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering

undergraduates. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 207–219.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813002000

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and

invention. HarperCollins Publishers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of

creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335).

Cambridge University Press.

Dacey, J. S. (1988). Fundamentals of creative thinking. Lexington Books.

de Lauwere, C. C. (2005). The role of agricultural entrepreneurship in Dutch

agriculture of today. Agricultural Economics, 33(2), 229–238.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2005.00373.x

Dellas, M., & Gaier, E. L. (1970). Identification of creativity: The individual.

Psychological Bulletin, 73(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028446

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage

Publications, Inc.

Diyanni, R. (2016). Critical and creative thinking: A brief guide for teachers. John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Doerfert, D. L., Robertson, J. T., Akers, C., & Kistler, M. (2005). Farm broadcaster

knowledge and beliefs of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.

Journal of Applied Communications, 89(4), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-

0834.1313


132

Donnelly, B. (1994). Creativity in the workplace. The Journal of Technology Studies,

20(2), 4–7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43741567

Drevdahl, J. E. (1956). Factors of importance for creativity. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 12(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-

4679(195601)12:1<21::AID-JCLP2270120104>3.0.CO;2-S

Edwards, M., McGoldrick, C., & Oliver, M. (2006). Creativity and curricula in higher

education: Academics’ perspectives. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J.

Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative

curriculum (pp. 59–88). Routledge.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing

naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Sage Publications.

Estes, S., Edgar, L. D., & Johnson, D. M. (2015). Consumer perceptions of poultry

production: A focus on Arkansas. Journal of Applied Communications, 99(4).

https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1057

Feldhusen, J., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative

review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8(3),

231–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0803_3

Fischer, C., Malycha, C. P., & Schafmann, E. (2019). The influence of intrinsic

motivation and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation.

Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00137

Friedel, C. R., & Rudd, R. D. (2006). Creative thinking and learning styles in

undergraduate agriculture students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(4),

102. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.04102

Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives

of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi. Basic

Books.

Gibson, C., Hancock, H., Irlbeck, E., & Meyers, C. (2018). Cultivating creativity:

Faculty conceptions of creativity in agricultural communications students.

Journal of Applied Communications, 102(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-

0834.1753

Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. Harper &

Row, Publishers.


133

Gough, H. G. (1992). Assessment of creative potential in psychology and the

development of a creative temperament scale for the CPI. In Advances in

Psychological Assessment (pp. 225–257). Springer US.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9101-3_8

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1965). The adjective check list: Manual. Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Gruber, H. (1981). Darwin on man (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage

Publications.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In

Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage Publications, Inc.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–

293. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040755

Hancock, H. (2016). Conceptualizing creativity in agricultural communications

[Unpublished master's thesis]. Texas Tech University.

Hassenstein, M. (1988). Bausteine zu einer naturgeschichte der intelligenz

[Fundamentals of a natural history of intelligence]. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.

Hill, K. G., & Amabile, T. M. (1993). A social psychological perspective on

creativity: Intrinsic motivation and creativity in the classroom and workplace. In

Scott G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.),

Understanding and recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp.

400–432). Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 45(5), 450–464.

Intarachaimas, W. (2012). Teaching agricultural students to be creativity. Naresuan

University Journal, 20(1), 99–104.

http://www.journal.nu.ac.th/NUJST/article/view/26

Irani, T., & Doerfert, D. L. (2013). Preparing for the next 150 years of agricultural

communications. Journal of Applied Communications, 97(2).

https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1109

Irlbeck, E. G., & Akers, C. (2009). Employers’ perceptions of recent agricultural

communications graduates’ workplace habits and communication skills. Journal

of Agricultural Education, 50(4), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.04063


134

Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2000). Creative approaches to

problem solving: A framework for change (2nd ed.). Creative Problem Solving

Group.

Isaksen, S.G. (1988). Educational implications of creativity research: An updated

rationale for creative learning. In K. Gronhaug & G. Kaufmann (Eds.),

Innovation: A cross-disciplinary perspetive. Norwegian University Press.

Jackson, N. (2006a). Creativity in higher education. SCEPTrE Scholarly Paper, 3, 1–

25.

Jackson, N. (2006b). Making sense of creativity in higher education. In N. Jackson, M.

Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education:

An imaginative curriculum (pp. 197–215). Routledge.

http://www.jstor.org/journal/highereducation

Jagtap, S. (2019). Design creativity: Refined method for novelty assessment.

International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 7(1–2).

https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1463176

Jahnke, I., Haertel, T., & Wildt, J. (2017). Teachers’ conceptions of student creativity

in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1),

87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1088396

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of

creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688

Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s

leading design firm. Doubleday.

Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on

the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4),

285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805

Kurtzo, F., Hansen, M. J., Rucker, K. J., & Edgar, L. D. (2016). Agricultural

communications: Perspectives from the experts. Journal of Applied


Lewis, G. (2019). The Most In-Demand Hard and Soft Skills of 2019. LinkedIn Talent

Blog. https://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions/blog/trends-and-

research/2019/the-most-in-demand-hard-and-soft-skills-of-2019


135

Lin, Y.-S. (2011). Fostering Creativity through Education-A Conceptual Framework

of Creative Pedagogy. Runco & Chand, 2(3), 149–155.

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2011.23021

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Inc.

Loizzo, J., Jones, C., & Steffen, A. (2019). A pilot qualitative case study of

agricultural and natural resources scientists’ Twitter usage for engaging public

audiences. Journal of Applied Communications, 103(4).

https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2276

López-Mesa, B., Mulet, E., Vidal, R., & Thompson, G. (2011). Effects of additional

stimuli on idea-finding in design teams. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(1),

31–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820902911366

Lou, S.-J., Chung, C.-C., Dzan, W.-Y., & Shih, R.-C. (2012). Construction of a

creative instructional design model using blended, project-based learning for

college students. Creative Education, 3(7), 1281–1290.

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.37187

MacKinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. The

American Psychologist, 20, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022403

Marksberry, M. L. (1963). Foundation of Creativity (E. E. Bayles (Ed.)). Harper &

Row Publishers.

McDermid, F., Peters, K., Jackson, D., & Daly, J. (2014). Conducting qualitative

research in the context of pre-existing peer and collegial relationships. Nurse

Researcher, 21(5), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.5.28.e1232

McMullan, W. E. (1976). Creative individuals: Paradoxical personages. Journal of

Creative Behavior, 10, 265–275.

Merzdorf, J., Pfeiffer, L. J., & Forbes, B. (2019). Heated discussion: Strategies for

communicating climate change in a polarized era. Journal of Applied


Mooney, R. L. (1963). A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the

identification of creative talent. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific

creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 331–340). John Wiley & Sons,

Inc.

Morgan, A. (1983). Theoretical aspects of project-based learning in higher education.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 66–78.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.1983.tb00450.x


136

Morgan, A. C. (2010). Competencies needed by agricultural communication

graduates: An industry perspective. Journal of Applied Communications, 94(1),

19–32. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1184

Morgan, A. C. (2012). Competencies needed by agricultural commmunication

undergraduates: A focus group study of alumni. Journal of Applied

Communications, 96(2), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1146

Morgan, A. C., & Rucker, K. J. (2013). Competencies needed by agricultural

communication undergraduates: An academic perspective. Journal of Applied


Morse, J., & Richards, L. (2002). README FIRST for a user’s guide to qualitative

methods. Sage Publications, Inc.

Motamedi, K. (1982). Extending the concept of creativity. The Journal of Creative

Behavior, 16(2), 75–88.

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., & Sager, C. E. (2003). Picking the right

materical: Cognitive processing skills and their role in creative thought. In M. A.

Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes (pp. 19–68). Hampton Press, Inc.

Naiman, L. (2019). What is creativity? (And why is it a crucial factor for business

success?). Creativity at Work.

https://www.creativityatwork.com/2014/02/17/what-is-creativity/

Necka, E. (1986). On the nature of creative talent. In A. J. Cropley, K. K. Urban, H.

Wagner, & W. Wieczerkowski (Eds.), Giftedness: A continuing worldwide

challenge (pp. 131–140). Trillium.

Northedge, A. (2003). Enabling Participation in Academic Discourse. Teaching in

Higher Education, 8(2), 169–180.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052429

Norton, M. (2006). Effects of divergent teaching itechniques upon creative thinking

abilities of collegiate students in agricultural systems management courses

[Unpublished master's thesis]. Texas Tech University.

O’Bryan, M. (2018). Why employers must learn that creativity is not just for the

young. https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/05/employers-must-learn-

creativity-just-young/


137

Oman, S. K., Tumer, I. Y., Wood, K., & Seepersad, C. (2013). A comparison of

creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design

projects. Research in Engineering Design, 24(1), 65–92.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0138-9

Petrone, P. (2018). The skills companies need most in 2018 – And the courses to get

them. LinkedIn The Learning Blog. https://learning.linkedin.com/blog/top-

skills/the-skills-companies-need-most-in-2018--and-the-courses-to-get-t

Powers, A. (2018, April). Creativity is the skill of the future. Forbes Media.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/annapowers/2018/04/30/creativity-is-the-skill-of-

the-future/#28d8813a4fd4

Pretty, J., Sutherland, W. J., Ashby, J., Auburn, J., Baulcombe, D., Bell, M., Bentley,

J., Bickersteth, S., Brown, K., Burke, J., Campbell, H., Chen, K., Crowley, E.,

Crute, I., Dobbelaere, D., Edwards-Jones, G., Funes-Monzote, F., Godfray, H. C.

J., Griffon, M., … Pilgrim, S. (2010). The top 100 questions of importance to the

future of global agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,

8(4), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0534

QCA. (2005). Creativity: Find it, promote, promoting pupils’ creative thinking and

behaviour across the curriculum at key stages 1 and 2, practical materials for

schools. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Rea, D. (2003). Optimal motivation for creative intelligence. In Don Ambrose, L. M.

Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic

intelligence (pp. 211–235). Hampton Press, Inc.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. In Phi Delta Kappan (Vol. 42, Issue 7).

Rogers, C. R. (1961). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe.

Runco, M. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Primary and secondary creativity. Current

Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 7–10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.08.011

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity

Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.

Saunders, M. N., Seepersad, C. C., & Hölttä-Otto, K. (2011). The characteristics of

innovative, mechanical products. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of

the ASME, 133(2). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4003409


138

Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation

(Second). Oxford University Press.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity

training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549

Shah, J. J., Kulkarni, S. V., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2000). Evaluation of idea

generation methods for conceptual design: Effectiveness metrics and design of

experiments. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 122(4),

377–384. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1315592

Simonton, D. K. (1975). Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A

transhistorical time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 32(6), 1119–1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.6.1119

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius. Cambridge University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1991). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of

120 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5),

829–840. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.5.829

Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office criteria seriously: A

quantitative three-criterion creativity sefinition and its implications. Creativity

Research Journal, 24(2–3), 97–106.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676974

Specht, A. R., & Buck, E. B. (2014). Advertising agrarian unreality: College students’

preferences for agricultural commodity advertising content. Journal of Applied

Communications, 98(2), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1075

Spitzer, R. (2013). Lighting the Fire of Innovation: How to Foster Creativity in the

Workplace. Journal for Quality and Participation, 36(3).

Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36, 311–322.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative

intelligence determine success in life. Plume.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006a). Stalking the elusive creativity quark: Toward a

comprehensive theory of creativity. In P. Locher, C. Martindale, & L. Dorfman

(Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 79–104).

Baywood Publishing Company.


139

Sternberg, R. J. (2006b). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1),

87–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a

culture of conformity. Free Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and

paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3–14).

Cambridge University Press.

Swanson, H. B., & Gore, W. (1976). Creative Communication is For You. Journal of

Applied Communications, 59(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1944

Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J.

Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological

perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

Telg, R. W., Lundy, L., Wandersee, C., Mukhtar, S., Smith, D., & Stokes, P. (2018).

Perceptions of trust: Communicating climate change to cattle producers. Journal

of Applied Communications, 102(3). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2207

Telg, R. W., Rumble, J. N., Stedman, N. L., Perez, ;, & Treise, D. M. (2019).

Exploring beyond the obvious: Social skills needed for agricultural

communications baccalaureate graduatess. Journal of Applied Communications,

103(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2188

Torrance, P. E. (1966). Rationale of the Torrance tests of creative thinking ability. In

Issues and advances in education psychology. F. E. Peacock.

Torrance, P. E. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in

creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12, 195–199.

Torrance, P. E. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J.

Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological

perspectives (pp. 43–75). Cambridge University Press.

Torrance, P. E., & Hall, L. K. (1980). Assessing the further reaches of creative

potential. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14, 1–19.

University of Illinois Library. (2018). AgNIC agricultural communications:

Organizations & associations.

https://guides.library.illinois.edu/agnic_ag_communications


140

Urban, K. K. (2003). Toward a componential model of creativity. In D. Ambrose, L.

M. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic

intelligence (pp. 81–112). Hampton Press, Inc.

van de Kerkhof, M., & Wieczorek, A. (2005). Learning and stakeholder participation

in transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 733–747.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.10.002

Vogl, C. R., Kummer, S., & Christoph, S. (2016). Farmers’ experiments and

innovations: A debate on the role of creativity for fostering an innovative

environment in farming systems. Proceedings of the 2nd European International

Farming Systems Association (IFSA) Symposium, 47, 21–25.

Vogl, C. R., Kummer, S., Leitgeb, F., Schunko, C., & Aigner, M. (2015). Keeping the

actors in the organic system learning: The role of organic farmers’ experiments.

Sustainable Agriculture Research, 4(3), 140–148.

https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v4n3p140

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Whaley, S. R., & Henderson, J. L. (1994). The Creative Work Environment: Manager

and Employee Perceptions of Factors that lnfluence Creativity Within

Land·Grant Communication Units. Journal of Applied Communications, 78(3).

https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1409

Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1990). An interactionist model of creative

behavior. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24(4), 279–290.

Zhao-xiong, Z. (2009). Creativity agriculture: A new growth point for China’s future

agriculture. Journal of Jiangxi Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition),

1. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-JNDS200901007.htm

Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2011). Deepening our understanding of creativity in the

workplace: A review of different approaches to creativity research. In S. Zedeck

(Ed.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology, Vol. 1. Building and developing the organization (pp.

275–302). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12169-

009

Zimmerman, B. J., & Labuhn, A. S. (2012). Self-regulation of learning: Process

approaches to personal development. American Psychological Association, 1,

399–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-014


141

APPENDIX A

IRB APPROVAL


142

Original Signature Available Upon Request


143

APPENDIX B

RECRUITMENT EMAIL

Good morning,

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Larrah Welp, and I am a graduate student at

Texas Tech University in the department of Agricultural Education and Communications. Dr.

Courtney Gibson and I are conducting a research study on the creative skills utilized and

prioritized within the agricultural communications discipline.

I am reaching out for your assistance in conducting this research. For this study, I am looking

for professionals in the agricultural communications industry currently serving on boards of

agricultural communications organizations. Your involvement would be a 30-minute phone

interview. The interview will be audio recorded and your identity and responses will be kept

confidential through the use of a pseudonym or “fake name”.

I acknowledge your time is valuable and involves a busy schedule, but I would greatly

appreciate your help in this study. The profession’s understanding of influencing factors on

creativity will help us determine the priorities for creativity and allow us to determine

effective encouragement of these creative skills. Interviews will be conducted by phone at

your convenience. If you have time to talk, let’s schedule a time to chat. If not, please let me

know.

If you have any questions regarding this research, please contact Dr. Courtney Gibson at 806-

834-8766 or [email protected]. You may contact the Human Research Protection

Program at Texas Tech University for any questions regarding the rights of participants. Their

phone number is (806)-742-2064, and their email is [email protected].

I am truly grateful for your time and consideration in helping me with this research.

Thank you,

Larrah Welp Graduate Assistant Texas Tech University Department of Agricultural Education and Communications [email protected] | (970) 215-4812

mailto:[email protected]




144

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Interview date and time:

Participant:

Demographics

• Tell me a little bit about yourself.

o Desired to know these characteristics: type of current work, duration in

agricultural industry, duration in the field of agricultural

communications, time with current organization, gender.

Creativity Overview

• How do you define or interpret creativity?

There are four approaches to creativity. We will go through each of them in more

depth to understand how you might emphasize various descriptors.


• When thinking of the work environment, what allows you to be the most

creative? What are the important attributes for that working environment?

o Such as challenging work, freedom, goals, deadlines, supportive

culture, supportive coworkers, supportive management

• What are the strengths you observe in your environment and in others? How

can we improve as a discipline?

Creative Process

• What would you say are important steps factoring into the process?

o Such as identifying the problem, collaboration, acquiring knowledge

relevant to the issue, time to evaluate, idea generation, combining and

selecting ideas, communicating the idea.

• Where do you see the current strengths of various professionals in the industry

in executing the process? Where can we improve?


145

Creative Product

• What is important to you when evaluating the resulting product in terms of

creativity?

o Such as novelty, effectiveness, usability, elaboration: well-crafted, etc.

• Is the profession effective at developing creative products? What are they good

at doing? Where do we need to improve?

Creative Person

• Another aspect to creativity is attributed to the capability of the person. How

do you determine if someone is creative? What characteristics do they need to

have?

o Such as divergent thinking, originality, general knowledge, specific

knowledge, focus and commitment, external and internal motivation,

expression, openness.

• How do you suggest we encourage creative application and encourage the

creative person? Where are the strengths seen in the industry? Where can we

improve?

Prioritization of Creative Approaches

• After going over these different approaches to creativity, how would you

prioritize these four categories? What do you tend to focus on the most for

yourself and for a creative culture?

Closing

• What additional information would you like to provide?