Stakeholder Groups in Computational Creativity Research and Practice - Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines - page 10

which challenged our view that the earth is the centre of the universe; Darwin's the-
ory of evolution, which challenged concepts of what it means to be human, to be
distinct from other animals, and the notion that our existence has a higher purpose;
and Lemaître et al.'s Big Bang theory, which challenged the view that the universe
is a stable, stationary entity. In all of these cases the scientists faced their own chal-
lenges of reconciling their findings with their religious or world views, and then a
process of outreach was necessary in order to gain wider social acceptance. Thus, we
see Thomas Huxley—“Darwin's bulldog”—promoting Darwin's theory in the face
of many varied and negative responses to it (some of which are recorded in [ 23 ]) and
helping it to gain wider acceptance, transitioning from scientific to social fact. Today,
people in the fields of genetically modified food and stem cell research endeavour to
gain wider social acceptance in the form of media coverage and well-funded outreach
programmes aimed at educating both school children and the wider community.
Computational Creativity is in a particularly difficult position, since its main
research question concerns an essentially contested concept. On certain understand-
ings, the question “can machines be creative?” may be answered negatively, without
further elaboration or debate. Thus, we see part of the job of the Computational
Creativity community consisting in the delivery of outreach programmes, in which
creative software is demonstrated and explained, and the artefacts it has produced
exhibited in a setting in which consumers of creative artefacts might begin to appreci-
ate them. In [ 24 ], Franzen et al. explore the impact that such dissemination activities
can have on scientific progress, and argue that the right name, image or metaphor has
the power to make or break relations between a scientific discipline and the public.
For instance, consider Dolly the sheep from the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh and Ida
the primate fossil from the Messel Pit in Germany. These names make it easier for
the discoveries to be visualised and discussed. Arbib and Hesse go further, stating
that “scientific revolutions are, in fact, metaphoric revolutions” [ 25 , p.156], cited in
[ 26 ,p.5].
In addition, then, to sociological narratives, it is important to consider language
use by each stakeholder group. The role of spin doctors is well-known in the polit-
ical arena, in which those who bestow power are influenced in their thinking by
vocabulary, metaphors and frames. In our case, the public have the power to bestow
or withhold the word “creative” when describing software. Thus, we need to con-
sider the language that we use. Lakoff [ 27 ] argues that we fit new information into
pre-existing frames, which are built up slowly over time, and if we don't have appro-
priate frames, then we might misunderstand the information. Using the wrong frame,
which is triggered by specific vocabulary, even to deny a message, only reinforces
the frame. Thus, rather than trying to argue that “creative software is not scary”, we
should build up our own vocabulary, frames and metaphors for thinking about it.
Hypothesis 1 Different stakeholder groups (including Computational Creativity
researchers, the general public, domain creatives, psychologists, philosophers,
educators, critics, journalists, bureaucrats, etc.) assess creativity in software
differently, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to presenting what software
does and what it produces in the best way to increase perception of creativity.