From Discipline to Improvisation: A Practice-Based Model for Training Creativity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper, "From Discipline to Improvisation: A Practice-Based Model for Training Creativity" which provides a creative way to dive into the underexplored construct of creative processes. This topic is highly important, specifically in a world where rapid technological advancements and artificial intelligence are redefining the nature of creativity.

 

The paper offers a beautiful context to examine the creative process through the lens of an Ikebana artist, treating this as a subjective experience and applying a researcher-introspection methodology. It aims to address:

• The complexity of the creative practice regarding the embodied and procedural dimensions of this process.
• A proposed three-stage process for training creativity.
• A theoretical framework that incorporates deliberate creativity theory.

 

However, several points and questions arose while reading the paper that require further development. I present my comments and ideas below, organized by section:

 

1. Introduction
   • Positioning the Contribution: There is an established body of literature that has already challenged the notion that creativity is purely spontaneous. I suggest citing this literature and reframing your discussion, so it does not sound as though this challenge is the primary contribution of your paper. Instead, explicitly state how your paper addsto or builds upon this existing literature.

Suggested references:

Agogué, M., Parguel, B., & Bendas, A. (2023). Do you believe Red Bull gives wings? When implicit theories of creativity impair creative performance. Creativity and Innovation Management.‏

Guo, H., Zhou, Z., & Ma, F. (2025). Effect of Training Programs on the Creativity of University Students: A Multi-Level Meta-Analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 101779.

Leclair, M. (2023). The atmospherics of creativity: Affective and spatial materiality in a designer’s studio. Organization Studies, 44(5), 807-829.

 

Mayhew, M. J., Selznick, ,. B., Zhang, ,. L., Barnes, A., & Mangia, S. (2021). Teaching Innovation Capacities in Undergraduate Leadership Courses: The Influence of a Short-Term Pedagogical Intervention. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(6), 877-896.

Scott, G., Leritz, L., & Mumford, M. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388.

Thompson, N. A. (2018). Imagination and creativity in organizations. Organization Studies, 39(2-3), 229-250.

 

• Narrative Flow and Focus:The introduction section (pp. 1–2) is rich, but the narrative flow is not clear. In its current structure, the section transitions from a brief presentation of the creative process to a conceptual distinction between creativity and innovation, moves to the influence of social context, shifts to creative behavior, and then loops back to the dynamics of the creative process.

There is a need to unpack these arguments or remove some of them to streamline your ideas.

For example, why is the influence of social context on creativity important here, and how does it manifest? How is the creative experience connected with a future orientation? Why is it important to present multiple different models of creative behavior right in the introduction?

• Methodological Clarity: What is the distinction between introspection, participant observation (Spradley, 1980) and reflexivity in the context of your study? Clarifying this early on will strengthen your methodological foundation.
• Research Question and Puzzle:The introduction currently lacks a clear research question and central "puzzle." This could be added to the existing concluding paragraph of the section. Restructuring the introductory "funnel" will enable you to unpack the theory and empirical context smoothly while presenting the main research question much earlier.

2. Literature Review
   • Defining Key Concepts:In the literature review, certain concepts and terms are presented without explanation (for example, "emotional labor" on page 2). I suggest reviewing the manuscript and ensuring that all terms are clearly defined when they are initially introduced.
   • Following up on previous comments regarding the introduction section, the overall focus of the paper remains somewhat unclear, which subsequently impacts the literature review. It is difficult to discern whether the manuscript focuses primarily on the creative process itself, the experience of imperfection and incomplete processes, or the creation of creative environments. Crucially, how do these distinct concepts relate to one another, if at all?
   • On page 7, there is a key sentence: "To make this creative art accessible to everyone, a highly systematic training process has been laid out over the last few decades."I found this point highly important and suggest bringing it to the forefront; the paper could then be reorganized around the accessibility of creative practices and imperfection.
3. Methodology
   • Data Structure and Analysis:Can you add a dedicated subsection that explicitly explains the structure of your data? Specifically, please clarify how you analyzed the materials.
   • Timeline: What was the specific timeline or time framing for data collection?
   • Managing Bias:How did you mitigate or control for researcher bias during the introspective process?
4. Conclusion
   • Conceptual Organization:The conclusion section introduces many concepts that are not yet organized to present a clear, unified contribution. For example, resilience is an important element of the model, but it is not sufficiently explained in the text. Furthermore, the sudden reference to academic research on page 17 appears without prior foundation, as does the professional example on page 18.
   • Model Integration:The model presented in Figure 10seems to be a key contribution, but it is introduced very late in the paper and requires significantly more explanation.
   • The argument regarding the creation of a creative environment is highly insightful, but to make it practical for the reader, it should be unpacked much earlier in the manuscript.

 

I hope you find these comments constructive and that they will help you improve and successfully publish this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was an engaging article. 

The idea of deliberate practice arises when exploring what it takes to become an expert in a particular field.  One can also look at deliberate creativity (within a particular domain). Further analysis may look at the juxtaposition of these two activities. 

However, overall, I found the article excellently written.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I provide a few suggestions below. 

I would reconsider the use of the word "training" in an article about creative learning. 

 

Title: From Discipline to Improvisation: A Practice-Based Model for Training Creativity

 

*I found this article very engaging. The author explores dimensions of creativity through a unique lens of introspective ethnography. Visual images appropriately complement the theoretical insights.

1 Suggestions: Rather than "training" creativity, the think that the title must focus more on learning dimensions (e.g.  encouraging creativity, advancing creativity, etc.). The use of the word "training" is very instrumental and concrete while in contrast, the article is all about creativity and free expression, an openness to new ideas, etc. 

2. Implications for Teaching and Learning: To encourage a wider readership, the author could comment more on the value of teaching creativity across the disciplines. What can educators learn from this article in terms of their own approach to teaching and learning. 

-See Elliot Eisner, Lynn Newton, Douglas Newton, and Vlad Glavineau for more research connections in the classroom (and beyond the classroom). 

-I question the use of "training" ....rather than transformative learning which indeed is linked to intrinsic motivation, risk taking, an openness to new perspectives  and so on. 

Overall, the article is well written and clearly organized. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the revised version of the manuscript, “From Discipline to Improvisation: A Practice-Based Model for Training Creativity” 

Thank you for sharing the revised version of the manuscript, “From Discipline to Improvisation: A Practice-Based Model for Training Creativity” along with the cover letter detailing the changes made in response to the reviews.

I appreciate the paper’s introspective and exploratory orientation, as well as the authors’ thoughtful engagement with my previous comments. The revisions have clarified several aspects of the manuscript, and the connections among creativity, embodiment, materials, and the environment are becoming more visible. My comments below are intended to help further strengthen the paper’s theoretical and methodological coherence while ensuring that readers from a broad range of backgrounds can clearly follow its key arguments and unterstand its intended contribution.

Below, I present my comments on the authors’ revisions.

Response 2:

• Thank you for adding the clarification on p. 13, lines 452ff. Could you also briefly explain how “mind wandering” relates to the practice described in the paper? Making this connection explicit would help readers understand the relevance of the concept to your argument.
• With regard to the discussion of Leclair (2023) added on p. 14, lines 505ff, thank you for providing this important explanation. I suggest also incorporating this point into the presentation of the model on p. 18, particularly given the various examples provided throughout the paper to illustrate engagement with materials and the environment. Doing so could make the relationship between the theoretical discussion and the proposed model more explicit.
• Thank you for making the effort to consider and incorporate my suggestions regarding additional references. I truly appreciate the work that has gone into expanding the paper’s theoretical foundation. However, adding these references primarily in the conclusion, without first introducing and integrating them into the literature review, risks missing the broader purpose of their inclusion. This is particularly important because the authors also draw on these sources to explain the proposed model, which represents a central contribution of the paper. Their integration should therefore be more thorough and should begin earlier in the manuscript.

If the authors wish to draw on Scott et al. (2004), I suggest introducing and discussing this work as an integral part of the paper’s theoretical foundation and literature review. This is especially important given that the manuscript already refers to training earlier in the discussion (pp. 8 and 12).

The same comment applies to other newly added references, such as Glăveanu (2013) and Agogué et al. (2024). Rather than introducing these works primarily in the conclusion, I suggest integrating them into the relevant theoretical discussions earlier in the manuscript.

Response 3: Page 4, Line 157ff

While I appreciate the authors’ response, I remain somewhat unclear about the distinction drawn here between participant observation and researcher introspection. The contrast appears to imply that participant observation examines a cultural setting, whereas introspection provides access to an individual first-person experience. However, first-person experience, including tacit judgement, bodily experience, motivation, and inner struggle, is itself culturally, socially, and materially situated. Indeed, the authors note elsewhere in the manuscript that “Leclair (2025) strengthens our argument by showing that embodied creativity is not only about movement, but also about the affective atmosphere generated through material…” This observation seems to reinforce the idea that embodied first-person experience cannot be separated from the material and affective environment in which it occurs.

Therefore, cultural embeddedness does not appear to provide a sufficient basis for distinguishing between the two methods. Would it be more precise to distinguish them in terms of the primary source of data and the locus of analysis? Namely, engagement with participants and practices in a shared field setting, as opposed to the researcher’s own experience serving as the central empirical material? I encourage the authors to clarify this methodological distinction and explain how the researcher’s introspective account is situated within, rather than separated from, its cultural, material, and affective context.

In addition, the manuscript still lacks a dedicated section explaining how the empirical materials were analyzed. What was the specific time frame for the introspective process and data collection? What materials or records were included in the analysis, and how were they interpreted? Finally, how did the authors address researcher subjectivity and potential bias during the introspective and analytical processes? A clearer account of these methodological decisions would considerably strengthen the transparency and credibility of the study.

Response 4

Please see my comments under Response 2 concerning the integration of the newly added literature into the theoretical discussion and the explanation of the model.

Final comments

While reading the revised manuscript, I noticed that there is still room to tighten the text by ensuring greater terminological consistency. For example, are “creative capacity” (p. 17, line 643), “creative practice” (p. 1), and the “practice of experimentation” (p. 18) intended to refer to the same concept? If so, I suggest selecting one term and using it consistently throughout the manuscript. If these terms refer to distinct concepts, their differences and relationships should be clearly explained.

Also, please note that there is a typo error on page 14, line 508.

Overall, I appreciate the authors’ engagement with the review process. Addressing the remaining concerns regarding theoretical integration, methodological transparency, and terminological consistency would make that contribution clearer and more persuasive.

Thank you and good luck!

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf