Sizing up ‘the box’ in order to fit in

REFERENCES

• Amabile, T. M.1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Antaki, C., and S.Widdicombe, eds. 1998. Identities in Talk. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, J. M.1982. “Understanding Formality: Notes on the Categorisation and Production of ‘Formal’ Interaction.” British Journal of Sociology33: 86–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and J.Heritage, eds. 1984. Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Basadur, M.1994. “Managing the Creative Process in Organizations for Ideation in Creative Problem-Solving Training.” In Problem Finding, Problem Solving, and Creativity, edited by M. A.Runco, 237–268. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer, C. E., and M.ten Bhömer. 2013. “Imagining the Prototype.” In Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference, June 18–20. LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications. Tutkimusraportit – Research Reports, Vol. 6, edited by HelinäMelkas, and JacobBuur, 43–51. Lahti, Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer, C. E., and J.van Dijk. 2011. “Brainstorming: Talk and the Representation of Ideas and Insights.” In Participatory Innovation Conference Proceedings, edited by J.Buur, 15–20. Sønderborg: University of Southern Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, Donald. 1960. “Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought As in Other Knowledge Processes.” Psychological Review67 (6): 380–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheney, G., and P. K.Tompkins. 1987. “Coming to Terms with Organizational Identification and Commitment.” The Central States Speech Journal38 (1): 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, Steven. 1992. “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News-Interview Discourse.” In Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited by PaulDrew, and JohnHeritage, 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clift, Rebecca. 2000. “Stance-Taking in Reported Speech.” In Essex Research Reports in Linguistics. Vol. 32, Essex: University of Essex.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1998. “Coherent Voicing. On Prosody in Conversational Reported Speech.”. Interaction and Linguistic Structures, InLiSt No. 1.
   Google Scholar
• Csíkszentmihályi, M.1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• Cuisinier, C., E.Vallet, G.Bertoluci, D.Attias, and B.Yannou. 2012. A Renewed View of Innovation – A Statement of Practices and Organizational Models in Large Companies [Un nouveau regard sur l'innovation – Un etat des pratiques et des mode les organisationnels dans les grandes enterprises]Paris: Techniques de l'Ingénieur.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, A.2007. “The Enactment of Design Through Language.” Design Studies28 (1): 5–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P.1992. “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” In Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 8 edited by PaulDrew, and JohnHeritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P.1998. “Complaints About Transgressions and Misconduct.” Research on Language and Social Interaction31 (3–4): 295–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drucker, P.1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Due, B.2012. “Den sociale konstruktion af ideer: En multimodal interaktionsanalytisk undersøgelse af hvordan ideer skabes socialt via deltageres disaffilierende eller affilierende responsformater.” PhD diss. Department of Scandinavian Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Fleming, D.1998. “Design Talk: Constructing the Object in Studio Conversations.” Design Issues13 (2): 41–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gero, J. S.2011. “A Situated Cognition View of Innovation with Implications for Innovation Policy.” In The Science of Science Policy: A Handbook, edited by K.Husbands-Fealing, J.Lane, J.Marburger, S.Shipp, and B.Valdez, 104–119. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gero, J. S., and U.Kannengiesser. 2009. “Understanding Innovation As a Change of Value Systems.” In Growth and Development of Computer-Aided Innovation, edited by R.Tan, G.Gao, and N.Leon, 249–257. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Glock, F.2009. “Aspects of Language Use in Design Conversation.” CoDesign5 (1): 5–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, Erving. 1972/1955. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” In Communication in Face to Face Interaction, edited by J.Laver, 213–231. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Earlier publicered in: Psychiatry, Vol. XVIII, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, Erving. 1981. “Footing.” In Forms of Talk, 124–159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Golato, Andrea. 2000. “An Innovative German Quotative for Reporting Embodied Actions: Und ich so/und er so ‘and I'm like/and he's like’.” Journal of Pragmatics32: 29–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C.2003. “Recognizing Assessable Names.” In Excavating the Taken-for-Granted: Essays in Social Interaction. A Festschrift in Honor of Robert Hopper, edited by PhilGlenn, Curtis D.LeBaron, and JenniferMandelbaum, 151–161. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Günthner, Susanne. 2000. “Constructing Scenic Moments: Grammatical and Rhetoric-Stylistic Devices for Staging Past Events in Everyday Narratives.” InList No. 22, University of Konstanz.
   Google Scholar
• Harder, P.1980. “Møveri.” In Hvad går vi ud fra? Om forudsætninger i sprog og handling, edited by P. Harder and A. Poulsen, 13–26. København: Gyldendals Sprogbibliotek.
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T., J.Landgrebe, and B.Matthews. 2012. “Collaboration to Restrict: A Conversation Analytic Perspective on Collaboration in Design.” CoDesign8 (4): 200–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt, Elisabeth. 1996. “Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction29 (3): 219–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt, Elisabeth. 2000. “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33 (4): 425–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janis, I. L.1971. “Groupthink.” Psychology Today, 5:6, November.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, W. C., and R.Mauborgne. 2005. Blue Ocean Strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landgrebe, J.2011. “Intersubjectivity: Interactional Trouble Sourcing and ‘Problem’ Pictures.” In Participatory Innovation Conference Proceedings, edited by JacobBuur, 32–37. Sønderborg: University of Southern Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Lopez, E. C., G. B.Esquivel, and J. C.Houtz. 1993. “The Creative Skills of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Gifted Students.” Creativity Research Journal6: 401–412.
   Google Scholar
• Luck, R.2003. “Dialogue in Participatory Design.” Design Studies24 (6): 523–535.
   Google Scholar
• Luck, R.2009. “‘Does This Compromise Your Design?’ Interactionally Producing a Designconcept in Talk.” CoDesign5 (1): 21–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews, B.2009. “Intersections of Brainstorming Rules and Social Order.” In About: Designing. Analysing Design Meetings, edited by J.McDonnell, and P.Lloyd, 33–47. London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, B., and T.Heinemann. 2012. “Analysing Conversation: Studying Design As Social Action.” Design Studies33 (6): 649–672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayes, Patricia. 1990. “Quotation in Spoken English.” Studies in Language14: 325–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazeland, Harrie, and MikeHuiskes. 2001. “Dutch ‘But’ As a Sequential Conjunction: Its Use As a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, edited by M.Selting and E.Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J.2009. “Collaborative Negotiation in Design: A Study of Design Conversations Between Architect and Building Users.” CoDesign5 (1): 35–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J.2011. “A Cost of Relevance Preferences During Interviews.” In Participatory Innovation Conference Proceedings 2011, 27–31. Sønderborg, Denmark: University of Southern Denmark, January 13–15.
   Google Scholar
• Mednick, S.1962. “The Associative Basis of the Creative Process.” Psychological Review69 (3): 220–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medway, P.1996. “Virtual and Material Buildings: Construction and Constructivism in Architecture and Writing.” Written Communication13: 473–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortensen, K.2013. “Writing Aloud: Some Interactional Functions of the Public Display of Emergent Writing.” In Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference, edited by HelinäMelkas, and JacobBuur, 119–125. Lahti, Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology, June 18–20.
   Google Scholar
• Motte, D., B.Yannou, and R.Bjärnemo. 2011, January “The Specificities of Radical Innovation.” In International Conference on Research into Design (ICoRD), 10–12. Bangalore, India:
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, Mie Femø. 2012. “Using Artifacts in Brainstorming Sessions to Secure Participation and Decouple Sequentiality.” Discourse Studies14 (1): 87–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, Mie Femø. 2013a. “Stepping Stones in Opening and Closing Department Meetings.” Journal of Business Communication50 (1): 34–67.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, MieFemø. 2013b. “Fitting the Box: Orienting to Appropriateness, Sufficiency, Image and Professional Quality.” In Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference, edited by HelinäMelkas, and JacobBuur, 18–20. Lahti, Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology, June 18–20.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, M. F., M.Lindorf, L.Rimestad og, and K. V.Rønn. forthcoming. “Vi skal være mere kreative!” Facilitering af innovative teams. Et mikroanalytisk bidrag til innovationsforskningen. Department of Scandinavian Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Oak, A.2011. “What Can Talk Tell Us About Design? Analyzing Conversation to Understand Practice.” Design Studies32 (3): 211–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oak, A.2012. “‘You Can Argue It Two Ways’: The Collaborative Management of a Design Dilemma.” Design Studies33 (6): 630–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oak, A.2013. “‘As You Said to Me I Said to Them’: Reported Speech and the Multi-Vocal Nature of Collaborative Design Practice.” Design Studies34 (1): 34–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, T.1937. The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Pepinsky, H. B., J.Riner, M.Moll, and K. E.Weick. 1966. “Research Team Productivity.” In Studies on Behavior in Organizations, edited by R.Bower, 135–156. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
   Google Scholar
• Pike, K. L., ed. 1954. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Structure of Human Behavior. 2nd ed. 1967The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A.1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. MaxwellAtkinson, and JohnHeritage. Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction., 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prahalad, C. K., and V.Ramaswamy. 2000. “Co-Opting Customer Experience.” Harvard Business Review, January 1.
   Google Scholar
• Rawlinson, J. G.1981. Creative Thinking and Problem Solving. Farnborough: Gower.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G.2004. “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone “So” in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 185–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, Harvey. 1972a. “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by J. J.Gumperz, and D.Hymes, 325–345. New York: Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, Harvey. 1972b. “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology.” In Studies in Social Interaction, edited by D.Sudnow, 31–74. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon, Avon, edited by G.Button, and J. R. E.Lee, 54–69. England: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Sarkar, P., and A.Chakrabarti. 2011. “Assessing Design Creativity: Measures of Novelty, Usefulness and Design Creativity.” Design Studies32: 348–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A.1991. “Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited by LaurenResnick, John M.Levine, and Stephanie D.Teasley, 150–171. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A.1992. “Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., G.Jefferson, and H.Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language53 (2): 361–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., and H.Sacks. 1973. “Opening Up Closings.” Semiotica8 (4): 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Schuldberg, D.1994. “Giddiness and Horror in the Creative Process.” In Creativity and Affect, edited by M. P.Shaw, and M. A.Runco, 87–101. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J.1911. “Die Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung.” In The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot. Revised and trans. 1935, New edition 2002, New BrunswickCambridge, MA and Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Senge, P. M.1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, Dean. 1999. Origins of Genius. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, Anselm, and JulietCorbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, Robert. 2002. Weird Ideas That Work. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vagle, W., M.Sandvik, and J.Svennevig. 1994. Tekst og kontekst. En innføring i tekstlingvistikk og pragmatikk. Oslo: J.W. Cappelens Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Weick, Karl E.1988. “Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations.” Journal of Management Studies25: 399–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitfield, P.1975. Creativity in Industry. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
   Google Scholar