Inovation and creativity discourse

1 Carol-Anne Croker. PhD Candidate, Swinburne University of Technology. Australia.

Innovation and Creativity: Discursive Drivers of Economic Policy

Australia 2009: (unpublished)

Abstract

In 2008 the Australian Federal Government released Venturous Australia, a report which positioned

creativity central to the Innovation and Globalisation rhetoric. In 2009 the Australian Research

Council (ARC) has opened access to the HASS sector (humanities, arts and social science disciplines)

to International Collaborative Grants Funding schemes previously only available to the STEM

(Science, Technology, Engineering , Medicine) discipline researchers.

Minster Carr is on record as stating that to build a knowledge economy for the twenty-first century

and for Australia to improve its export position amongst comparable OECD nations, such a divide

between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ innovation, and the creativity that drives it is no longer appropriate.

For academics, researcher and practitioners in Creative Writing programs, as well as for our

colleagues in other arts-based or practice-led research disciplines we are now encouraged into the

mainstream educational and societal discourses. We are expected to engage with the globalisation

imperatives for Australian Industries, including the publishing and tertiary education industries.

As part of research towards my doctoral studies propose that Creative Writing Studies and indeed

Writers themselves, can no longer be viewed as marginalised within the Academy, nor within the

economic and social dialogue about Australia’s future.

“If the arts are to be valued as an integral part of Australia’s national innovation system, we must:

Develop an understanding of arts-based knowledge that connects it to innovation

Broaden commercialisation of the arts and creative outputs

Develop the argument for the arts as social inclusion

Educate an innovative workforce

Meeting these challenges requires further research, sector-wide coordination and leadership.” (Jaaniste 2008:p.5)

This response to Senator Carr’s review into the ‘National Innovation System’(Cutler 2008) by Brad

Haseman and Luke Jaaniste, from QUT outlines the political and social imperatives that will frame

the educational debates within arts and humanities faculties in Australia in the coming months and


years. For those of us studying and working in Creative Arts disciplines, especially those of us in

Creative Writing disciplines these imperatives can signify where the academic debates need to focus

within our own disciplines, sectors, departments, faculties and institutions as well as more broadly

within the International tertiary education market.

I propose that we can unpack this discourse of creativity and innovation to ascertain the broader

economic and social political machinations at play. I am calling for the de-constuction of this new

hegemonic tertiary educational discourse which finds a home within the corporate managerialist

policies and mission statements of our Universities. (Oakley 2004; May 2006; May and Perry 2006;

Atkinson and Easthope 2008)

I contend that by linking fuzzy notions of innovation with the as yet under-theorised notion of

creativity (at least in an Australian context), and to imply a direct correlation between research and

excellence as drivers of national economic prosperity is problematic. (Oakley 2004; Lowrie and

Willmott 2006; May and Perry 2006; 2008; Hecq 2008; Smart Business 2009)

First I need to look at how in Australia this discourse has taken hold and been acknowledged and

privileged within the Rudd federal government s policy agenda. I have developed a timeline of the

emergence of this discourse in the public sphere based on a quick literature overview.(Figure 1) In

overseas literature creativity and innovation have been linked for decades before the 21st century

but this timeline illustrates a new paradigm with innovation becoming applied to non-science-based

discourse. I must acknowledge that individual Australian State Premiers did recognise the Arts sector

as economic drivers, particularly with the impact in boosting tourism numbers and dollars, but the

linking of innovation with creativity into the term ‘Creative Industries’, with the explicit instrumental

connotations, was yet to appear in the public discourse. One famous example is SA Premier labelling

Adelaide ‘the Athens of the South’ in the mid seventies.


Figure 1: The development of Creativity and Innovation discourse in Australian education and public policy. 2000-9


In a paper presented in Barcelona in 2004i, Masayuki Sasaki referred to the following diagram to

position the Creative Industries as drivers of cultural development and innovative thinking, which in

turn drives the ‘hard’ innovations needed for turning ideas to practice.

Figure 2 Concentric circle model of culture industries: Creative Core

As Hecq identified in her 2008, paper Banking on Creativityii, she spoke of the need to place

creativity at the centre of the discourse and indeed education practice within our university sector.

“Creativity in universities is offered up as a generic skill, no longer limited to practices involving the

arts. It has espoused the political agenda that drives the economy to renaissance heights. It is tied in

with development, new ideas and, above all, innovation. Productivity, output, cost effectiveness are

here buzz-words, not creativity. Thus neo-liberal globalisation remains a significant challenge facing

universities and the creative industries increasingly need to play the game of economics in order to

be included in the system.”

Figure 3. Dimensions of Innovation.iii

Based on P Stoneman (2007). An Introduction to the definition and measurement

of soft innovation, NESTAiv

Working Paper, London.


If we compare the system as conceptualised by If we compare the system as conceptualised by

Swann, P and Birke, D (2005) as cited in Hecq (2008), we see that the model when applied to the

Australian higher education sector, with particular reference to the Creative industries, goes a long

way to solving the dualist dilemma faced by universities. What can be ‘sold’ in the education market

as a ‘quality innovative research paradigm’ is also able to meet the needs of the local education

market, identified by the Bradley Reportv. If we allow students to study where their interest and

indeed skills lie, we can address the predicted shortage of skilled labour for the knowledge

workforce in the twenty-first century, whilst maintaining competitive rankings on the global quality

scales of measurement.

Figure 4: Linking Creativity and Design to Business Performance. Source: Swann, P and Birke, D (2005) ‘How do creativity and design enhance business performance? A Framework for interpreting the evidence’

vi DTI Think Piece, University of

Nottingham Business School, as cited by Howard (2008) CHASS Occasional Paper Number 5

By noting the student-demand and interests shown by Australian Government’s own statistical

data, the Creative Arts disciplines in Australian Universities has experienced growth over a number

of years. Looking at the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

publication; Selected Higher Education Statistics: Award Course Completions between 1996 and

2007 (the most recent complete data set) the 5 change in domestic student numbers in Creative Arts

fields of study has increased at 3.9%, the second largest increase apart from in the Health fields of

study with 7.7% . If we include the field of study classified as Society and Culture there has been a

further 2.2% increase in domestic student numbers across the decade.

The increase is not confined to only domestic students with a smaller but still substantial increase in

the number of overseas students completing awards in the Creative Arts field of study; a 5.1 %

increase third to both Hospitality and Personnel Services (460.5%) and 8.8 % increase for

management and commerce. The exponential growth in hospitality and personal services student

numbers amongst overseas students can be accounted for this area of qualification being on the

Australian Government’s skilled shortages list of priority study/immigration programs and the

increase is from a traditionally low base, reflecting the fields’ recent place within University

curricula. By ignoring the statistics for the problematic field of hospitality and personal services for


overseas students, if we add the increase for overseas students studying society and culture fields of

research, we can see a 1.8% increase in these fields also.


Figure 5: DEEWR Award Course Completions for All Students by Citizenship and Broad Field of Study, 1996 to 2007 (Government of Australia 2009)

(a) Data for 1996–2000 have been mapped from field of study classification to field of education classification.

(b) The data take into account the coding of combined courses to two fields of education. As a consequence, counting both fields of education for combined courses means that the totals may be less than the sum across all broad fields of education.


With Creative Arts courses proving popular with students and demonstrating consistent annual

increased enrolments and award completions, it has been inevitable that there has been a student

driven demand for higher degree programs in the Creative Arts disciplines across the decade.

In the paper, Describing the creative writing thesis : a census of creative writing doctorates, 2001 -

2007, Boyd (Boyd 2009) has determined that the aggregate of award course completions for creative

arts doctorates by research has increased over the period from 80 in 2001 to 202 in 2007. The

number considered ‘creative theses’ is 199. Thus we can extrapolate that there is an increasing

demand for student places within Creative Writing higher degrees which is most probably replicated

across the broader fields of creative arts research and practice in Australian Universities. More

research is being done in this area particularly by Dr Paul Thomas at Curtin University and Ms Giselle

Kett at the Victorian College of the Arts, but no definitive data is currently available.

“In Australia, over the past decade there has been a steady increase in both the number of PhD

programs in the creative arts and also in the number of candidates enrolled”.(Creative Arts PhD

Projects Roundtable 2008: p.8)

Given the consensus within the Creative Arts Disciplines it seems that the Creative Arts are driving a

substantial increase in student demand within our Universities, and if we accept the Prime Minister

Kevin Rudd’s imperative in his closing speech at the 2020 summit; ‘to put to bed the false dichotomy

between the arts and sciences” it is increasingly important for Australian Universities to recognise

the contributions to knowledge made in the Creative Arts disciplines. The Government reinforces

this new alignment or strategic direction for our Universities but as yet few have taken this on board

in any systematic and meaningful way. There are some attempts to position the discourse within

the various University strategic plans but at this stage I would contend that it is merely ‘window

dressing’ to camouflage the lack of administrative will to cater for the HCA disciplines, other than as

a source of “bums on seats” and EFTS dollars.

Our Universities are slow to respond to institutional change, particularly when it is not tied to

additional sources of Government funding. We may have regulatory authorities to audit the

practices of our Universities but in the case of the Creative Arts (particularly Creative Writing), where

is the policy imperative to recognise academic staff’s creative work as research output or research

equivalency? Some Universities have moved their bibliometrics to include these works but some

have not. There still exists no formal sanctions for non-compliance in this area under the new

Excellence in Research Australia introductory period..

If academic –practitioners creative work in the Creative Arts remain unrecognised and undervalued,

how can the disciplines ensure that students are taken seriously, despite Cutler’s determination that

“Australia’s innovation policy needs to acknowledge and incorporate the role of the creative and

liberal arts” (Cutler 2008: p.48) for the National benefit?

As Luke Jaaniste Research Fellow in Queensland University of Technology’s Creative Industries

Faculty, states, “This response holds the perspective that the creative arts and broader humanities

(HASS sector) can drive, produce, apply and diffuse innovation, in different but equally useful ways

to the STEM sector... it does not adequately follow this through in the substance of its discussions

and recommendations.” (Jaaniste 2008)


These “new” destinations, particularly collaboration with the ‘emerging’ research nations, (India,

China and South America) together with a re-invigourated discourse with interdisciplinary focus for

Arts disciplines, as implicit in the new ERA field of research codes for the HCA sector (humanities and

creative arts sector) demonstrates the agenda is underpinned by a rhetoric of globalisation.

With the Higher Education sector increasingly positioned as product driven industry with export

earning capacity there has been a radical altering of education policy and institutional strategic

planning to take advantage of scarce Government funds from an increasingly competitive national

grants schemes (ARC and NHMRC). Yet Universities have been slow to change their own Strategic

Plans over the last twelve months.

In a ‘pull no punches’ breakfast address to the National Tertiary Education Union, Simon Marginson

from the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne, summarised the

current situation in 2009.

“Australia is the only country in that world that uses its top 200 research universities to shore up the

balance of trade. We are the only nation where these universities enrol 10,000 fee paying

international students and more just to balance the books. And the only nation where for every dollar

raised in international income, national government has taken the opportunity to cut a dollar from

its own allocations to the universities, leaving them no better off than before in financial terms but

with the added burden of sustaining the export sector. Australia has become a by-word for quantity

not quality, and hustling not scholarship, in the international education market.”(Marginson 2009)

In the Creative Arts disciplines, particularly in Creative Writing, it is critical that Universities heed

these shifts in educational policy, as the future Government funding initiatives such as the

International Science Linkages for the HCA sector, administered by the Australian Academy of

Humanities demand a broadening of the education being provided and indeed marketed to both the

domestic and international students. It is the contention of this paper that the HCA (Humanities and

Creative Arts ERA cluster) disciplines are well suited to capitalise on the development of niche

education markets, both at home and abroad.

Firstly, let’s examine the international and global education agenda as outlined in the most recent

policy document from the Australian Federal Government’s Department of Innovation, Industry,

Science and Research; Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the Twenty First Century. Value is

now to be recognised for research proposals and projects that enhance international co-operation

and collaboration between individual researchers and discipline clusters across like-minded global

partners.vii

These global partners correspond with the worlds rapidly growing economies of Asia where there

are existing models for research collaboration in place under the Science Division’s Co-operative

Research Centres, whose charter is to:

"To deliver significant economic, environmental and social benefits to Australia by supporting end-user driven research partnerships between publicly funded researchers and end-users to address clearly articulated, major challenges that require medium to long term collaborative efforts."


The CRC Program links researchers with industry to focus R&D efforts on progress towards utilisation and commercialisation. The close interaction between researchers and the users of research is a key feature of the Program. Another feature is industry contribution to CRC education programs to produce industry-ready graduates. To date there have been a total of 168 CRCs.

There are currently 48 CRCs operating in 6 sectors: environment (10), agriculture and rural-based manufacturing (14), information and communication technology (5), mining and energy (4), medical science and technology (8) and manufacturing technology (7).(Government of Australia 2009)

However despite the apparent primary target being the existing six CRC sectors and generally seeking research relationships across the emerging economic giants of the world economy, there is also the imperative to continue Australian involvement in developing collaborations and alliances with our Asia Pacific Partners. Japan, Indonesia. Chile and Brazil were recently identified at a meeting between ‘interested’ academic members of the Australian Academy of Humanities and the DIIR National roadshow at Melbourne University in May 2009.

Here Dr Jon Lewis, Manager of the Asia, Pacific and Africa International Science Branch of the

Science and Research Division (of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research)

encouraged all researchers from all disciplines within the HCA sector to investigate and take

advantage of these grant schemes as the Minister Kim Carr has publicly indicated that the “false

dichotomy” between the Arts and Sciences serves no purpose under Prime Minister Rudd’s newly

conceptualised notion of innovation and research. The old privileging of the STEM (science,

technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines in the academy cannot meet the Nations

needs for innovation as it is bound within idea of ‘hard’ innovation which in turn constrains and

ignores the ‘soft’ innovation found in non STEM disciplines, ‘as if creativity is somehow this thing

that only applies to the arts, and innovation is this thing over here which applies uniquely to the

sciences, or technology, or design.’(Cutler 2008: p.47)

The ramification of this shift in focus challenging “the ‘great cultural divide’ that needs rethinking,

between the realm of the conceptual, the intellectual [on the one hand] and the artisan and

craftsman [on the other]” (Jaaniste 2008citing Venturous Australia p.48) is that Universities must

reconfigure their own disciplinary structures and search out new research synergies.

The opportunities for exploring uncharted research terrain and pedagogy within the Creative Writing

discipline has never been more encouraged or supported under a [life] raft of new funding schemes

and additional openings within previously limited and targeted schemes. We now have an

imperative to expand our existing national and international collaborative research linkages. We are

encouraged to launch cross and interdisciplinary research to enhance both academic credibility for

the discipline and to ensure direct practical applications within our Industry sector and communities.

At Australia’s dual sector universities (Technical and Further Education & Higher Education), the

opportunity is present for universities to position themselves as Australian, and indeed world leaders

in workforce linked education by using the now accepted, (academically and structurally), and

highly sought after (by students), practice-led research pedagogy and theorising.

The Australian Government in the paper, Powering Ideas: an innovation agenda for the Twenty-first

century, (Senator Kim Carr 2009) correctly links Australia’s economic prosperity with the

development of an educated and highly skilled workforce. This skilled workforce is aspired to by all


OECD nations in the current quest to build knowledge economies more adaptable to technological

and scientific change than previous workforces.

By challenging the traditional conception of academic knowledge the ‘innovation agenda’ stresses

the importance of the synergies between education (particularly tertiary education), culture, arts,

science and technology.

It is within this conceptual framework that the Rudd Government is pushing ahead with reforms to

all levels of education, early childhood, pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary, as articulated in

the 2009 budget in response to the Cutler Review, Venturous Australia into the National Innovation

System, the subsequent Powering Ideas report and finally the Bradley Review into Higher Education.

Each document stresses the need for dismantling false disciplinary boundaries, especially those that

form the science/humanities dichotomy, the need to view education as an Industry (from cradle to

grave or as is the favoured buzz words; “life-long learning”) that both provides the skilled knowledge

workers for growth export industries, and positions education as an export commodity especially

throughout the Asia Pacific region. At the same time these reports look towards the ‘old world’ as

represented by the OECD and UNESCO.

When examining the OECD reports into Higher Education and indeed, into the education sector

more generally, there exists a common master discourse driving policy formulations and

government interventions. Whilst attempting to reconceptualise the imperatives for economic

development and sustainability by seeking answers from the education sector and its research

experts, there is also the recognition that globalisation can be accompanied by the negatives of

colonialism. By looking both towards the newly developing world, and simultaneously towards the

first world there is a place created where culture, nation and region can be identified.

Thus in terms of quality measures of universities we are now looking at all the relevant metrics in

operation throughout the member states of the OECD. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the most

exciting for non-science based disciplines is the recognition granted to the disciplines charged with

mapping human history, social change and cultural developments, the Humanities and Social

Sciences, are having their research work judged alongside the research generated by ‘hard sciences’.

In Australia with the ERA (Excellence in Research Australia), in the UK’s RAE (Research Assessment

Exercise)viii and in Asia with the Taiwan Humanities Indexix, creative works are allowed ‘research

points’ and recognition as practice-based or practice-led research. It is allowing for the nexus

between innovation and practice to be reconceptualised as being driven by both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’

research and innovation.


Figure 6: Type and number of thesis awarded by university by 30 June 2008

Taken from Boyd (2009)


Bibliography:

(2008). "Closing the Innovation Gap: Reigniting the Spark of Creativity in a Global Economy." Industry Week 257(11): 62. Atkinson, R. and H. Easthope (2008). "The Creative Class in Utero? The Australian City, the Creative Economy and the Role of Higher Education." Built Environment 34(3): 11. Boyd, N. (2009). "Describing the creative writing thesis: a census of creative writing doctorates, 1993 - 2008." Text 13(1). Creative Arts PhD Projects Roundtable (2008). Future Proofing the Creative Arts in Higher Education: a scoping project for quality in creative arts research training. Melbourne, University of Melbourne College of the Arts: 11. Cutler, T. (2008). Venturous Australia: Building Strength in Innovation. I. Department of Innovation, Science and Research. North Melbourne, Cutler and Company Ltd. Cutler, T. (2008). Venturous Australia:Report on the Review into the National Innovation System. T. Cutler. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. Government of Australia (2009). Co-operative Research Centres. I. Department of Innovation, Science and Research. Canberra, AGPS. Government of Australia (2009). Higher Education Student Statistics Collection 2007 DEEWR. Canberra, AGPS. Hecq, D. (2008). Banking on creativity?, Australian Association of Writing Programs. Jaaniste, L. (2008) Comments on the Review of the national Innovation System (RNIS): Responding to the RNIS Report, Venturous Australia: building strength in innovation. Jaaniste, L. (2008) Response to 'Venturous Australia': comments on the Review into the National Innovation System. QUT Digital Repository Lowrie, A. and H. Willmott (2006). "Marketing Higher Education: The Promotion of Relevance and the Relevance of Promotion." Social Epistemology 20(3/4): 221-240. This paper examines the marketization of higher education. It takes the curriculum

development for a degree sponsored by industry as a focus for exploring the involvement of industry and, more specifically, prospective employers, in shaping higher education provision. Empirical material gathered from a three and a halfâ€•year ethnographic study is used to illustrate how mundane promotional work associated with sponsored curricula operates to reconstitute higher education. It is shown how, in the process of introducing sponsored curricula into the university, a market relevance discourse is merged with traditional discourse to promote a new discursive order and thereby contribute to the reformation of university education. This hybrid discourse (of tradition and relevance) makes traditional resistance to the encroachment of â€œrelevanceâ€• into university education more difficult to justify, and perhaps impossible to sustain. Nonetheless, it produces new antagonisms that provide future sites of resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]


Copyright of Social Epistemology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)

Marginson, S. (2009) Australian Education and the World: has the Bradley Report got it right? NTEU Breakfast Forum May, T. (2006). "Universities: Space, Governance and Transformation." Social Epistemology 20(3): 333 - 345. This paper takes up the themes in the articles and examines not only the environmental

changes that are taking place in relation to universities, but also the dynamics of their organizational implications. It argues that there are parallels between managerially and academic professionalism in that both deny context. Arguing for a context-sensitivity that is not dependant, issues of space and governance become important in order to understand forms of knowledge and the relationship between the contexts of production and the contents of what is produced. Universities have different capacities to play at the game of scales and they are judged according to abstract indicators that provide little or no opportunity for learning. Instead of examining these relations, expertise is assumed to be spatial, whilst universities transform themselves in the slipstream of imagined futures as if they were separate from the present and past. Understanding is lost in the process and so too are the opportunities to adequately examine the differences in types of knowledgeâ€™s that are produced for sustainable futures in contemporary societies.

May, T. and B. Perry (2006). "Cities, Knowledge and Universities: Transformations in the Image of the Intangible." Social Epistemology 20(3/4): 259-282. The current higher educational landscape in the UK is marked by complex sets of

expectations, accompanied by efforts to encourage universities into diversifying and stratifying functions. Yet the picture is far from clear and a number of tensions and contradictions remain, such as in relation to incentivisation and reward structures which impact differentially on universities. For universities that attempt to translate these agendas into meaningful actions at the local level, the result is a mixture of enthusiasm, engagement, retreat and defence. This article will demonstrate such processes in action through a discussion of the ongoing â€œManchesterâ€“â€“Knowledge Capitalâ€• initiative, which seeks to bring local and regional partners and universities together to create a critically acclaimed global pivot to the emerging knowledge economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Social Epistemology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)

Oakley, K. (2004). "Not So Cool Britannia: The Role of the Creative Industries in Economic Development." International Journal of Cultural Studies 7(1): 67-77. This article provides a brief overview of current UK policy and practice in the area of the

creative industries and economic development and aims to raise concerns about what I see as the problems arising in the implementation of these policies. It argues that the desire to use creative industries' as a single weapon with which to turn around economically


depressed regions risks creating polarized and unsustainable economic development. Creative industries developments, if they are to succeed, cannot be disconnected from the cultural policies that nurtured them and the social policies that can help to sustain them.

Senator Kim Carr (2009). Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the Twenty-first Century. . Canberra, Commonwealth Government. Smart Business (2009). "Innovation renovation." Smart Business 5(5): 16-16. The article reviews the book "Closing the Innovation Gap: Reigniting the Spark of Creativity

in a Global Economy," by Judy Estrin.

i Sasaki, M. (2004) The Role of Culture in Urban Regeneration. Paper presented at the Diàlegs - Fòrum

Universal de les Cultures – Barcelona 2004. http://www.barcelona2004.org/esp/banco_del_conocimiento/docs/PO_22_EN_SASAKI.pdf Originally accessed August 2007. ii Hecq, D. Banking on Creativity. Conference Paper presented at the Australian Association of Writing

Programs Annual Conference: Creativity and Uncertainty at the University of Technology, Sydney. November

2008. (Publication forthcoming).

iii Howard, J.H. (2008) Between a hard rock and a soft space: design, creative practice and innovation. CHASS

Occasional Paper Number 5. www.chass.org.au/papers/pdf/PAP20080521JH.pdf Accessed August 2008

iv NESTA National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. U.K.

v Bradley, D. (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education.

http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Pages/ReviewofAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx

Accessed July 17, 2009.

vi www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14794.pdf Accessed July 25, 2009

vii Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the Twenty-first Century. Australian Government. Released May

13, 2009 Accessed June 2, 2009. viii

http://www.rae.ac.uk/ Accessed July 20, 2009

ix http://www.lis.ntu.edu.tw/~khchen/writtings/pdf/p410.pdf Accessed July 20, 2009

http://www.barcelona2004.org/esp/banco_del_conocimiento/docs/PO_22_EN_SASAKI.pdf%20Originally%20accessed%20August%202007

http://www.barcelona2004.org/esp/banco_del_conocimiento/docs/PO_22_EN_SASAKI.pdf%20Originally%20accessed%20August%202007

http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Pages/ReviewofAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14794.pdf%20Accessed%20July%2025

http://www.rae.ac.uk/

http://www.lis.ntu.edu.tw/~khchen/writtings/pdf/p410.pdf

Inovation and creativity discourse

Education

Transcript of Inovation and creativity discourse