Journal of Political Science Education

ISSN: 1551-2169 (Print) 1551-2177 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

SCAMPER and Creative Problem Solving in Political

Science: Insights from Classroom Observation

Elizabeth Radziszewski

To cite this article: Elizabeth Radziszewski (2017) SCAMPER and Creative Problem Solving in
Political Science: Insights from Classroom Observation, Journal of Political Science Education,
13:3, 308-316, DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2017.1334562

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2017.1334562

Published online: 12 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 263

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upse20
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION
2017, VOL. 13, NO. 3, 308–316
https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2017.1334562

none defined

SCAMPER and Creative Problem Solving in Political Science:

Insights from Classroom Observation
Elizabeth Radziszewski
Rider University

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article describes the author’s experience using SCAMPER, a Received 13 July 2016
creativity-building technique, in a creative problem-solving session Accepted 8 May 2017
that was conducted in an environmental conflict course to generate KEYWORDS
ideas for managing postconflict stability. SCAMPER relies on cues to Active learning; creativity;
help students connect ideas from different domains of knowledge, ideas
explore random combinations between ideas in the same area and
reduce mental blocks. Insights from classroom observation show
SCAMPER’s utility in helping students formulate novel ideas and
encourage divergent thinking and classroom participation. Combining
SCAMPER with another session designed to evaluate the ideas’ logical
connection to the problem is likely to maximize the students’ ability to
deliver both original and relevant ideas. SCAMPER is a promising tool
that instructors could use to develop their students’ creative problem-
solving skills to tackle policy challenges across different subfields in
political science.

Introduction
There is an unspoken crisis in the workforce today. Only one third of leaders believe that
their employees can deliver ideas that matter (Sinar, Wellins, and Pacione 2011).
Employees, it seems, suffer from a creativity deficit. Yet, more than ever, employers are
looking for students with the potential to make connections across disciplines and to adapt
to the dynamic forces of globalization. Along with strategic and leadership skills, employers
rank creative problem solving as the most sought after but less common skill among college
graduates, according to Bloomberg.com’s 2014 survey of 1,320 job recruiters from 600
companies. Despite the appetite for creative skills, college courses focus predominantly
on developing critical-thinking skills with less attention devoted to cultivating the students’
capacity to deliver original ideas. Jackson (2006) argues that creativity is rarely a learning
objective in higher education. Similarly, Jackson and Shaw (2006) note that the majority of
educators surveyed in their study thought that creativity’s value is mostly confined to rhet-
oric. That specific focus on fostering creative thinking, beyond performing arts, lags behind
emphasis on critical thinking is usually rooted in personal and systemic resistance. The
educators’ and institutions’ established teaching approaches, fine-tuned over the course
of many years, might be less open to curricular goals that elevate the importance of
creativity (Duenkel 2013). Not surprisingly, students struggle with cultivating creativity,

CONTACT Elizabeth Radziszewski eradziszewski@hotmail.com Rider University, 2083 Lawrenceville Rd,

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/upse.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 309

although evidence shows that individuals with strong creative skills are better innovators,
enjoy satisfaction at work and lead fulfilling lives (Jackson 2006). How can instructors help
their students develop stronger creative-thinking skills and enable them to adapt to an
increasingly changing world? Can creativity-building techniques used in such fields as
business and marketing enhance the development of original and relevant ideas in political
science? In this article, I describe my experience with using SCAMPER, a creativity-
building technique, in a creative problem-solving session that I conducted in an
environmental conflict course to generate ideas for managing postconflict stability.

Creative and critical-thinking skills: The intersection

Critical thinking is used to examine ideas and solutions. Students might be encouraged to
compare different authors’ takes on the same idea and to evaluate the logic of the argu-
ments and the value of evidence presented. Creative thinking, which most researchers
define as a process of developing ideas that are novel and functional (Simonton 2000)
and is the definition I use here, requires tapping into critical analysis yet it goes beyond
that. To emphasize creativity in the classroom is to ask students to develop original ideas
before they utilize critical-thinking skills to evaluate those ideas. Although creative and
critical-thinking skills are often seen as different, Runco and Chand (2005) consider the
evaluation of ideas, which involves critical analysis of ideas to distinguish the functional
ones from the less useful, as part of the creative process along with ideation and problem
identification. This suggests that, while the creative process involves both novel and func-
tion ideas, it is the novel part that requires the development of skills that are unique from
those involved in critical thinking. Together these skills comprise vital components of a
holistic approach to creative problem solving. College courses emphasize the value of
dissecting a given idea’s merit by looking at the logic of the argument and the evidence.
By contrast, focusing on the novelty facet of creative thinking encourages students to
become better at generating ideas to begin with before engaging in the “evaluation” phase.
This approach enables students to become “prod-users” of knowledge (Hearn 2005).

Fostering creative thinking

Creative individuals exhibit notable personality traits, including risk taking, motivation,
and confidence (Eysenck 1995); yet, scholars increasingly focus on environmental factors
that enable such traits to flourish. Instructors set the tone for the creative process by
inviting students to borrow ideas from different fields and by striking the balance between
control and randomness in the classroom (Shaughnessy 1991). Many scholars see the cre-
ative process occurring at the level of the team or the community (Csikszentmihalyi 1999).
Instructors can rely on group work as a creative outlet and to enable the flow of diverse
information through strategic organization of team activity. By turning to a student who
serves as a bridge between other teams in facilitating the flow of ideas, groups can enhance
ideation when exposed to ideas from other teams (Uzzi and Spiro 2005). Griffin (2011,
p. 426) shows the emergence of a creative process during group interactions in the dis-
cussion of “nudging” assignments where students developed solutions to social problems
while working in groups and played the role of judges to other groups to construct and
deconstruct ideas.
310 E. RADZISZEWSKI

The focus on group and socialization as a central feature of a creative process is also
found in simulations and related policy-development exercises used in political science.
Such activities offer benefits in promoting learning—a chance to apply learned concepts,
improved comprehension, and greater engagement (Poling and Hupp 2009)—and enhance
novel idea development even though the latter is rarely identified as a learning objective.
Nevertheless, as the process of connecting with different groups allows for enhanced flow
of divergent ideas, it is suitable for enhancing the novelty aspect of ideation. Furthermore,
the dynamic approach is likely to foster intrinsic motivation as the students address a
real-life policy conundrum, such as managing reconstruction after conflicts (Goon 2011)
or redesigning an educational policy (Wukich and Siciliano 2014).
There are also practices to increasing novel ideal development based on the use of
creativity-building techniques. The premise behind such techniques is that individuals
form novel ideas when they “unblock” their thinking process by diverging from the prob-
lem and the familiar knowledge domain to which it belongs. It is during divergent thinking
that the greatest potential for originality emerges (Kilgour and Koslow 2009). Creativity-
building techniques can be a valuable tool in improving the creative potential of students;
they can also complement approaches that are currently utilized, such as simulations.
While instructors can encourage the flow of ideas among groups in a simulation, students
can still struggle with initial idea development and benefit from stimuli to jumpstart the
creative process. Thus, creativity-building techniques can be useful for enhancing the stu-
dents’ experience with simulations and for brainstorming of ideas by providing that initial
stimuli for idea development upon which the group can then build. Some techniques, the
linear ones, focus on modifying information to produce new ideas; others, the intuitive
ones, rely on imagination to spark creativity (Michalko 2006). For example, the Brutethink
technique is based on forcing oneself to make connections between dissimilar things. One
might pick a random word, such as a pencil, and ponder connections between this word
and one’s challenge. A more intuitive technique such as Personal Analogy focuses on iden-
tifying with some part of the problem and seeing it from the problem’s perspective
(Michalko 2006). There is a limitation to the approach. While such techniques encourage
divergent thinking by increasing the number of original ideas, the appropriateness or
relevance of ideas sometimes declines (Kilgour and Koslow 2009). Creativity-building tech-
niques are not a substitute for knowledge and the ability to relate concepts back to the
problem. Instructors could maximize the benefit of such techniques by using them after
discussing major concepts in the subject to ensure that students have some knowledge
to link divergent concepts back to the problem.

SCAMPER creativity-building technique and creative problem solving

in an environmental conflict course: Classroom observation
In the spring of 2015, I introduced my students in an advanced seminar on environmental
conflict to SCAMPER, a creativity-building technique introduced by Alex Osborne, an
advertising executive, and refined by Robert Eberle (Gerrish 2008). SCAMPER is an
acronym for seven “mini” techniques/stimuli that force the students to combine ideas from
different domains of knowledge, explore random combinations between ideas in the same
domain and reduce mental blocks. The letter “S” in SCAMPER stands for the concept of
substitution: Students are asked to think about what part of the process/existing solution
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 311

could be substituted for something else? “C” stands for combine: Can two separate
processes be integrated? “A” stands for adapt: Has a similar problem been encountered
in a different field? Can their insights be adapted to our problem? “M” stands for modify:
Can an existing process or part of it be enlarged/simplified? “P” stands for put to other use:
Can an existing solution or part of it be put to another use? “E” stands for eliminate: What
part of the process can be removed/omitted? “R” stand for reverse: What would happen if
the process were reversed? (Elmansy 2015). The mini SCAMPER techniques could help
students achieve a moderate level of originality by pushing them to make connections
between concepts in the same knowledge domain while others, such as “Put to Other
Use,” encourage connection making between concepts from unrelated fields thereby
increasing the potential for achieving high-level originality. SCAMPER has been used for
brainstorming by teachers in elementary technology classes (Myrmel 2003), utilized in
innovation training at interdisciplinary conferences (Ennovity 2015) and embraced by
companies such as McDonald’s. SCAMPER’s application in the business setting has been
credited with helping companies retain their competitive edge, the introduction of drive-
throughs by McDonald’s and the addition of McCafe serving as examples of SCAMPER’s
utility in product and service innovation (Michalko 2006). When applied in elementary
technology class, Myrmel (2003) found that SCAMPER helped increase the quantity of
monogram drawings among students who were exposed to five-minute creativity training
over the course of five weeks in comparison to those who were not, though gains in the
quality of drawings were modest. Myrmel notes that SCAMPER offers an immediate boost
in the quantity of ideas and, with regular application over a more extended period of time
beyond the five weeks in her study, it could also improve the quality of ideas. My own
classroom experience with SCAMPER, discussed below, suggests that quality of ideas could
be improved not only by briefly discussing the techniques over the course of additional
weeks as suggested by Myrmel but also by actively applying SCAMPER to solving a
real-life challenge as part of a collective classroom experience in a longer session.
While an instructor could choose from a wide menu of creativity-building techniques,
I focused on SCAMPER because it is the most comprehensive one, making it useful for
both generating numerous ideas and enhancing students’ creative potential. SCAMPER
is in essence a collection of seven simple techniques contained in one approach. This is
what makes it different from other creativity-building techniques, which usually offer a
single suggestion for expanding creative thinking. With SCAMPER, a student who exhausts
one technique can easily transition into another. Not only does this increase the potential
for delivering more ideas but also gives students the flexibility to move on to the next
technique without feeling the pressure to stay with one because there is no other tool upon
which to rely. Creative ideas flow when pressure is minimized, and a collection of “mini”
techniques embedded in one overarching technique allows students to skip one technique
completely or to return to it later without forcing an idea to emerge.
The 70-minute creative-problem solving session started with an explanation of
SCAMPER and the benefits of improving creative thinking to solve policy problems. It
built on previous discussions about the complexity of sustaining peace after the termin-
ation of environmental conflicts. The students were exposed to general ideas related to
postconflict management yet the session occurred before investigating specific topics in
greater depth. The goal was to ensure that the students had some knowledge of the subject
and could generate relevant ideas yet not extensive enough to get “stuck” in the familiar
312 E. RADZISZEWSKI

knowledge domain (Smith et al. 1993). Therefore, while the students were familiar with the
type of solutions to postconflict stabilization, their knowledge of each solution was
rudimentary. While SCAMPER and other creativity-building techniques that encourage
divergent thinking are expected to help increase creative ideas of experts and nonexperts,
it may be easier for nonexperts to develop more novel ideas as they have less of a tendency
to rely on their knowledge domain as the foundation for creative ideation (Kilgour and
Koslow 2009). Some of SCAMPER’s mini techniques focus more explicitly on encouraging
divergent thinking, for example, the “Adapt” technique. Such techniques can help experts
make connections across disciplines and still be useful in increasing originality of their
ideas. For nonexperts, however, there is a greater likelihood that all of SCAMPER’s mini
techniques could be useful in creative ideation.
Next, I identified a challenge that would be solved collectively: How can the inter-
national community help to reduce the commitment problem and to improve security
guarantees after the war ends? Students were familiar with the concept of a commitment
problem in civil wars, an idea that postconflict stability is jeopardized by the combatants’
failure to credibly commit to the terms of the treaty and the potential for vulnerability in
the absence of guarantees to enforce the contract (Walter 1997). They also knew about a
popular approach of relying on peacekeepers to reduce commitment problems (Walter
1997).
I then devoted 20 minutes to explaining SCAMPER’s mini techniques through examples
and a video. Instructors could utilize a number of videos available on YouTube that
demonstrate the technique’s basic premise. I found Amanda Graham’s (2013) video
developed by a British innovation firm, Equalta, particularly useful—a short five-minute
clip shows how SCAMPER’s techniques have been applied to redesign a candy bar. After
the video, I turned to PowerPoint examples from a variety of disciplines to demonstrate
how the application of SCAMPER’s techniques is evident in policy, product, and service
innovation. For example, to illustrate the concept of “Adapt” that asks students to consider
whether a similar problem that they are addressing has been encountered in another field
and whether the solution used elsewhere could be adapted to their challenge, I showed a
picture of U.S. soldiers using remotely controlled robots to disable improvised explosive
devices (IEDs) next to a smaller but somewhat similar robot used by biologists to gather
data on penguin populations. While at first the two contexts seem disconnected, I
explained that U.S. soldiers and biologists shared the same problem: How to minimize
the presence of humans in a difficult terrain. For the soldiers, it was to reduce the casualties
from IEDs while for the biologists it was to access data on shy animals. The biologists
incorporated the army’s solution into their own challenge. By applying some modifica-
tions—redesigning a robot so it resembles a penguin—they arrived at a novel solution to
collecting data when human presence was not possible. I provided examples from different
fields for each technique to demonstrate to the students that SCAMPER is an interdisci-
plinary tool for brainstorming.2 After the video and the presentation, the students received
a handout that explained for what each letter in SCAMPER stood (see Appendix).
The students were now ready to use SCAMPER’s mini techniques to solve the challenge
that I have identified earlier. We began by using the first technique and went down the list
until we used all of them. I wrote all the ideas on the board without evaluating their suit-
ability to reduce control. During the 35 minutes devoted to ideation, the students generated
15 ideas: Some focused on modifying an existing solution of sending peacekeepers to
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 313

alleviate the commitment problem while others pursued different approaches. I deemed
seven of those ideas novel; they were not discussed in academic journals and popular
policy-making magazines to the best of my knowledge. The rest were found in assigned
course readings. One original idea, based on the “Combine” part of SCAMPER, proposed
to combine UN peacekeepers with locally trained “peacekeepers.” Lack of funding some-
times interferes with the peacekeepers’ ability to reduce commitment problems; a large
force is often needed to monitor disarmament. The idea was to recruit local watchmen
equipped with defensive weapons to safeguard the population without violating the terms
of disarmament. Another unconventional idea, based on the “Put to Other Uses” stimulus,
focused on connecting crowdfunding to peacekeeping operations. Crowdfunding, a process
of collecting funds online from ordinary people to support business ventures, is rarely uti-
lized in international relations. The idea was to work with the United Nations to develop a
crowdfunding campaign to expand peacekeeping operations in areas with acute commit-
ment problems and to inject accountability to peace operations by getting the public
involved in funding the missions. The student who developed the idea made links between
distant concepts to generate insight formed by finding unexpected connections, displaying
divergent thinking that creativity scholars associate with the highest level of originality.
In the final phase of the session, the evaluation stage, the students utilized their critical-
thinking skills to examine the ideas’ relevance to the problem.3 I devoted 15 minutes to this
part of the session, asking students if the ideas listed on the board were related to our
challenge, and, if not, what connection was missing. Out of 15 ideas, 10 were judged
relevant, while five were deemed less appropriate because they did not address the problem.
My thoughts on the ideas’ suitability matched with the students’ evaluation.
Several insights emerged from this activity. First, as a group, the students were able to
benefit from SCAMPER to generate seven original ideas for solving an important inter-
national problem. Out of the seven novel ideas, five were also relevant to the problem.
One idea was both appropriate and highly original not only because it has not been
explored by scholars previously but also because it integrated concepts from unrelated
knowledge domains while the other novel ideas connected concepts within the same
domain. Overall, the collective effort yielded five novel and suitable ideas that could be
further developed during the course of the semester if desired. An instructor could, for
example, divide students into groups and ask each group to work on an idea from the
earlier session, encouraging groups to socialize with each other to further enhance the cre-
ative process and ultimately to deliver an innovative research project. Second, the creative
process was enhanced by working on a real-life challenge in a group setting. Studies
demonstrate that addressing real-life challenges expands intrinsic motivation, a factor that
enhances creativity (Griffin 2011). While the technique provided the stimuli to activate cre-
ative thinking, the creative process was enriched by the connection between theory and real
life. Third, encouraging students to build on each other’s ideas improved the flow and
originality of ideas; when some students relied on initial stimuli from SCAMPER for ideas,
others reconstructed those ideas in response to additional SCAMPER insights. This
dialogue injected novelty into earlier solutions. Overall, the students became more
comfortable with taking risks and experimenting with their ideas. In larger courses, stu-
dents could be divided into small groups, with each group building on the ideas of other
groups. Fourth, the activity increased the students’ engagement. Once the students began to
utilize SCAMPER, participation increased even for those students who rarely spoke before.
314 E. RADZISZEWSKI

At the beginning of the exercise, I encouraged students to suspend judgment of their ideas.
The students were told that in this phase of the session, they are encouraged to take risks.
In addition, once some risk-averse students observed the relaxed atmosphere that we were
able to establish during initial stage of brainstorming, they felt more comfortable to inject
their voice. This is consistent with research by Ahern, Duchin, and Shumway (2014) who
show that when risk-averse students are surrounded by peers who openly share ideas, risk
taking replaces risk aversion. SCAMPER’s emphasis on divergent thinking and nonjudg-
mental approach to ideation is a useful pedagogical tool for increasing engagement of those
students who are concerned about being wrong and prefer to adapt a more risk-averse
attitude.

Conclusion
Creative thinking skills are a necessity in today’s competitive market. My reflection on
conducting a creative problem-solving session that incorporated SCAMPER’s insights into
ideation demonstrates that even one use of a creativity-building technique can improve the
originality of ideas. Incorporating creativity-building exercises a few times during the
course of a full semester would likely strengthen this effect even more. Instructors should
note that SCAMPER offers limited improvement in the area of idea appropriateness, the
second dimension of creativity thinking. Thus, instructors should ensure that students have
some knowledge about the subject before they use SCAMPER. They should also allocate
sufficient time during the semester to help students evaluate the ideas they generate.
Combining the benefits of SCAMPER in the area of novel idea development with critical
thinking to assess the relevance of ideas is likely to enhance students’ capacity to generate
both novel and appropriate ideas.

Notes
1. Examples can be found on the Elizabeth Radziszewski’s Web site http://eradziszewski.webs.com/.
2. The students did not evaluate the solutions’ originality—this was based on my assessment.

Notes on contributor
Elizabeth Radziszewski is an Assistant Professor at Rider University. Her research focuses on inter-
national security, civil wars, social networks, foreign policy, and creativity in the classroom. She is
the author of Social Networks and Public Support for the European Union (2013, Routledge). Her
work has been published in The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Political Research Quarterly, Inter-
national Interactions, Foreign Policy Analysis, Journal of Global Security Studies, and The Wilson
Quarterly.

References
Ahern, Kenneth, Ran Duchin, and Tyler Shumway. 2014. “Peer Effects in Risk Aversion and Trust.”
The Review of Financial Studies 10(15): 1–15.
Bloomberg.com. 2014. “The Bloomberg Recruiter Report: Job Skills Companies Want but Can’t.”
Get. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-job-skills-report/ (Accessed April 20, 2016).
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1999. “Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity.” In
Handbook of Creativity, ed. Robert Sternberg. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 313–338.
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 315

Duenkel, Nicky. 2013. “The Transformative Potential of Creative Assignments in Higher Education.”
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching 6: 111–116.
Elmansy, Rafiq. 2015. “A Guide to the SCAMPER Technique for Creative Thinking.” Designorate.
http://www.designorate.com/a-guide-to-the-scamper-technique-for-creative-thinking/. (Accessed
December 10, 2015).
Eysenck, Hans, J. 1995. Genius: The Natural History of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gerrish, Robert. 2008. “SCAMPER Your Creativity.” CBS News. June 4. http://www.cbsnews.com/
news/scamper-your-creativity/ (Accessed April 11, 2016).
Goon, Michael. 2011. “Peacekeeping the Game.” International Studies Perspectives 12(3): 250–272.
Graham, Amanda. 2013. “SCAMPER: A Creative Thinking Technique.” April 8. https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=G8w0rJhztJ4, (Accessed January 5, 2017).
Griffin, Dana. 2011. “Nudging Students’ Creative Problem-Solving Skills.” PS: Political Science &
Politics 44(2): 425–427.
Hearn, Greg. 2005. “The Shift to Value Ecology Thinking and Its Relevance to Creative Industries.”
Paper presented at the Open Content Licensing (OCL): Cultivating the Creative Commons
Conference, Australia.
Innovation Collision. 2015. “Design Thinking, Creativity & Crowdsourcing in a Multi-Disciplinary
Setting.” Conference Organized by Ennovity, September 10-11, New York City. http://adamrnj.
wixsite.com/innovation-collision
Jackson, Norman. 2006. “Creativity in Higher Education: What’s the Problem?” Educational
Developments 7(1): 1–5.
Jackson, Norman, and Malcolm Shaw. 2006. “Subject Perspectives on Creativity.” In Developing
Creativity in Higher Education: An Imaginative Curriculum, eds. Norman Jackson et al. London:
Routledge-Falmer, 89–108.
Kilgour, Mark, and Scott Koslow. 2009. “Why and How Do Creative Thinking Techniques Work?”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37: 298–309.
Michael, Michalko. 2006. Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative-Thinking Techniques. Berkeley: Ten
Speed Press.
Myrmel, Mary K. 2003. “Effects of Using Creative Problem Solving in Eight Grade Technology
Education Class.” Master’s Thesis University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Poling, D. A., and J. M. Hupp. 2009. “Active Learning Through Role Playing: Virtual Babies in a
Child Development Course.” College Teaching 57: 221–228.
Runco, Mark, and Ivonne Chand. 1995. “Cognition and Creativity.” Educational Psychology Review
7: 243–267.
Shaughnessy, Mark F. 1991. “The Supportive Educational Environment for Creativity.” ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED360080.
Simonto, Dean Keith. 2000. “Creativity: Cognitive, Persona, Developmental and Social Aspects.”
American Psychologist 55(1): 151–158.
Sinar, Evan F., Richard S. Wellins, and Chris Pacione. 2011. “Creating the Conditions for Sustainable
Innovation,” Research Paper, Development Dimensions International. http://www.ddiworld.com/
ddi/media/trend-research/creatingtheconditionsforsustainableinnovation_tr_ddi.pdf (Accessed
March 20, 2016).
Smith, Steven M., Thomas B.Ward, and Jay S. Schumacher 1993. “Constraining Effects of Examples
in a Creative Generation Task.” Memory & Cognition 21: 837–845.
Uzzi, Brian, and Jarrett Spiro. 2005. “Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem.” The
American Journal of Sociology 11(2): 447–504.
Walter, Barbara. 1997. “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement.” International Organization
51(3): 335–364.
Wukich, Clayton, and Michael D. Siciliano. 2014. “Problem Solving and Creativity in Public Policy
Courses: Promoting Interest and Civic Engagement.” Journal of Political Science Education 10:
352–368.
316 E. RADZISZEWSKI

Appendix: SCAMPER handout