Abstract
Perhaps it is the analyst in all of us that finds a certain appeal in the above quote from Sigmund Freud's daughter. But why would anyone purposely offer “bad training”? Education should always be good; educators should know what they are doing; students should learn from what we do in the classroom. But what if a student's creativity is lacking? Can creativity be taught?
Those among us who come from industry quickly learn that war stories do not work. Others who come into education as “newly minted” Ph.D.'s and never taught a class quickly learn that great research does not automatically lead to great classroom skill. For both, the progression to successful pedagogy is often a struggle. Despite our good intentions, we face changing and challenging students who, rightly or not, often perceive that they are not getting the best education. We in turn often retreat to the line of defense that we should have “better” students, forgetting that our task is to train our current students, our existing clientele. We need to help all of our students learn, think, and perform.
This issue affords us an opportunity to look at an often intractable aspect of advertising education. Although not planned, it so happens that this issue of the Journal of Advertising Education is heavily represented with papers on the subject of creativity. Since most of us are not trained in creativity, per se, we forget that there are specific creative skills that can be taught. One is not necessarily “born” creative. As Edward de Bono stated, “Creative thinking is not a talent, it is a skill that can be learnt. It empowers people by adding strength to their natural abilities…”
So, how do we help our students to become more creative? While there are no magic answers, this issue of the Journal of Advertising Education speaks to needs, practices and application. Hopefully it will stimulate all of us to think about creativity and good training.