This document discusses challenges in higher education and proposes solutions to foster more creativity and innovation at St. Olaf College. It outlines problems such as insufficient interactions between students and faculty that limit innovation. The proposal suggests establishing a Creativity Center, creating an online crowdsourcing website, forming a think tank, reorganizing the Caf, and increasing student representation to stimulate more creative thinking and cross-disciplinary collaboration across campus.

1. Introduction
Higher education is always evolving. In essence, higher education should the dual purpose of
fairness in our society and producing unique capital for our economy. The U.S. boasts one of
the best higher education systems in the world, but still faces problems on multiple fronts.
Costs for college are skyrocketing, which pushes students to get the most worth from college.
Colleges are not producing the best and brightest. This failure is reflected in our shaky
economy. The core of higher education’s problems is in the intersection between the interests
of the instructors and students. Students desire a meaningful education and one that helps
them find good employment. Instructors wish to provide a meaningful education and one
that cannot be replaced with the advancement of technology. Thus, higher education must
provide a meaningful education, that is equitable to students, and one that produces economic
capital.
What is Innovation?
We use terms like innovation, originality, collaboration, creativity, and ingenuity to represent
more or less the same thing-- new ideas. While our understanding of creativity is still in its
infancy, we do understand that new ideas come from a new network that is forged by our
social interactions. Therefore, innovation is not a solo endeavour. This is reflected in the fact
that most research papers contain more than one author, often from different fields. That
trend among research in academia is a strong indicator that it is the networks we are in that
facilitate innovation. Hence the word “networking”. Sociologist Brian Uzzi described the
density of social connections in the variable Q. In his paper, Collaboration and Creativity:
The Small World Problem, Uzzi advocates for the ideal level of Q. Creativity and innovation
can be facilitated in the learning process by changing our surrounding networks or the Q
variable. By changing our networks we can increase creativity in the learning process and

2. enrich our knowledge of creativity. We propose to change the way St. Olaf interacts in order
to foster creativity.
Can You Teach Creativity?
Given the dilemma of higher education outlined earlier, it is necessary to make fundamental
changes to how knowledge is acquired. Although the definition of creativity is broad,
creativity can still be encouraged to transform interactions between instructors and students.
This can be achieved by changing our existing institutions and creating physical spaces that
foster creative, interpersonal networks. St. Olaf has already begun a trend towards a more
creative approach to learning. Regents Hall uses physical space to break down barriers
between the natural sciences and increase the collaboration between departments. Office
spaces are spread throughout Regents not based on department but on interest. This allows
new ideas to spread easily across disciplines in the natural sciences. We have also seen a
change in St. Olaf institutions. Since the end of the paracollege in 2000, two new
conversation programs have started, American Conversation and The Science Conversation,
with another, Environmental Conversation, on the way. These programs have become the
hallmark of St. Olaf’s innovative approach to education. Lastly, students have pushed this
trend with programs such as STO Talks. Therefore, creativity can be taught through our
institutions and physical spaces.
Problem
The core problem is that the structure of the college is insufficient to stimulate creativity
among faculty and students. St. Olaf College prides itself for a rigorous academic curriculum
and for a strong sense of community. Both of those characteristics must change in order for
St. Olaf to remain true to its mission. We see the problem as multi-faceted. Student to

3. student, student to faculty, and faculty interactions are insufficient in their current state to
foster effective innovation among the St. Olaf community.
Who We Are
Our group came together early in the year for research regarding Reflectance Transformation
Imaging (RTI). RTI is a new, open source, digital approach to capturing and artifact analysis
in the realm of archaeology. After a capture cycle of multiple images with strategic light
positions, a RTI image is formed. A RTI image highlights an object’s surface, making
elements not visible to the naked eye visible. The technology behind RTI traces its origin to
the military. RTI is a good example of creativity in that it was essentially taken from one field
and made to fit the needs of archaeology. At the core of the RTI technology is a dedication to
innovation and of democratization of information. Since it is open source, anyone in the
world can view artifacts in ways that even the human eye cannot see. Our team has been
pioneering this technology for almost a year. Our team of four students:
Seth Ellingson Class of 2015 History, Political Science, & Russian Area Studies
Kelly Montoya Class of 2015 Political Science
Nicole Wagner Class of 2015 English & Education concentration
Rebecca Frank Class of 2014 Classics, History & Ancient Studies
We hope that our direct experience with innovation will provide insight to the innovative
process.
Basic Proposal
Our goal with this proposal is to change the physical structure and institutions of St. Olaf to
produce a more innovative and closer community. We propose:
1.) Establishment of a Creativity Center

4. 2.) Creation of an online crowdsourcing community website
3.) Formation of a St. Olaf Think Tank
4.) Caf Reorganization
5.) Student Representation in CILA
I. Establish of a Creativity Center
Conversations regarding such a center exist, students even created a grant proposal to fund
such a venture. In response to the problem that St. Olaf faces, we propose a similar idea. A
Creativity Center at St. Olaf would serve as both an innovative space and an interpersonal
space. The physical space should be a representation of the institution’s commitment and
vision for a liberal arts education. Since Creativity Center’s are still in their infancies on
college campuses, the establishment of one at St. Olaf would also serve as an experiment that
free both faculty and students from the pedagogies in place at St. Olaf. Essentially the Center
would be a fusion of the existing institutions of the Weitz Center for Creativity and the
Creativity Centre at the University of Brighton and the University of Sussex. The Center
would facilitate student-professor interactions while horizontally integrating academic
disciplines.
We propose to use Steensland for the Creativity Center. The building itself would contain two
major components. The main floor of Steensland would contain office spaces for professors
and the Center’s staff. Each office would house a professor of a different department. This
would have the effects of horizontally integrating disciplines and thus facilitating the creative
learning process. Professors could discuss problems, exchange ideas, or have small talk.
Faculty could be selected to reside there on an interest basis. The center of the room would

5. home to the “Creative Center”. Sections of the room would be divided up by movable “White
Board Walls”. These walls would enable students and faculty to set up spaces as needed. In
addition, the space would also need to host technology in order to better integrate technology
into the creative learning process. For this reason the Center should include, hanging
projectors (present in large lecture rooms), “Smart” Boards (already in use in high schools),
smaller, movable projectors, a comprehensive sound system for the entire building, digital
cameras, digital video cameras, and portable visualizers (also present in most rooms). The
Center could also be reserved by certain groups using the R25 system, but could never reserve
the entire space. The Weitz Center for Creativity was $42 million for construction while the
student proposed grant set the cost at $1 million using the cost for similar buildings on
campus. However, we propose that, with the additional technologies incorporated, the Center
would require a $5 million grant. Likewise, the timescale for creating such a space could be
quick due to the lack of construction efforts. The Center could be ready in 2-3 years. Staff for
the Creativity Center would consist of a Director, Assistant, Academic Manager, and
Technician. Building hours could range depending on cost but should extend beyond normal
building hours. Faculty to faculty, student to student, and student to faculty relationships all
benefit while at the same time creating a thriving creative community at St. Olaf. This center
would thus provide a space to create.
II. Creation of an online crowdsourcing community website
Earlier in the year, the Kris Vatter sent an email out to the student body announcing that the
student with the best solution to fix the problem of bags on the floor (BOTF) would receive an
Ipad. After 115 submissions, Ms. Vatter created a committee of three SGA senators and two
building staff to sort through the submissions and pick the most feasible. Ms. Vatter stated

6. that, “The idea must be innovative and cost-effective.”
This problem is not the only problem facing St. Olaf. However, the problems that St. Olaf is
facing should be made public for students to solve. In 2001, the website InnoCentive was
launched. The idea behind it was simple: post problems online for anyone to solve and have a
monetary reward. Today, the website boasts over 270,000 registered solvers from over 200
countries and nearly $38 million in awards. Interestingly, most of the solvers are not experts
in the problem area that they solve. In fact, lacking expertise in a given field is sometimes an
advantage because the individual is not handicapped by indoctrination. For example, the
students who submitted submissions to get BOTF were not experts in building layout. This
deficiency lowered their perceptions of what would and wouldn’t work and in effect allowed
for more creative solutions. St. Olaf should establish an online crowdsourcing community site
to solve its hardest problems.
This site would be relatively easy to set up and run; Moodle could even be used. Monetary
rewards would be necessary to motivate students. The higher reward does not always
guarantee a better answer. Instead, money should just compensate the students for the time
they spend solving the problem while also providing an incentive to give up their time.
Solutions submitted could then could then be forwarded to a SGA committee, CILA, or a St.
Olaf Think Tank outlined later. After the group picks the best solution, the student collects a
cash reward. This site would democratize and simplify problem solving at St. Olaf.
III. Formation of a St. Olaf Think Tank
St. Olaf is home to some of the brightest students in America and also some of the most

7. talented professors. However, ideas and talents rarely between professors and students outside
of an academic setting. The liberal arts education at St. Olaf trains its students in creative
problem solving. Yet, St. Olaf is not fully utilizing the skills it is teaching.
A St. Olaf Think Tank would compose of 4-6 faculty members from a variety of backgrounds
and 4-6 motivated students also from a variety of backgrounds. The think tank could serve a
multitude of purposes. It could meet on a bi-weekly, monthly, or just as needed. The think
tank could then propose and discuss solutions to problems given to it by the administration,
SGA, or the online crowdsourcing community. It could also define problems that are
affecting campus. At the same time, a think tank would function as both a vehicle for
increased interdisciplinary work and for increased student-faculty synergy. Members could be
picked through applications from students or hand picked students.
To incentivize being on a think tank, stipends could be awarded to offset the loss of time.
Stipends are a good option for both faculty and students because the system is already in
place. In many ways, the think tank would act as a more functional, frequent, and direct
STO Talks.
IV. Caf Reorganization
Reorganization would only consist of three minor changes into how the Caf functions. First,
the elimination of trays. Second, the tables should be reorganized in a horizontal fashion.
Third, professors should have subsidized meals.
The elimination of trays is already a movement that has been discussed on campus. Apart
from the sustainable benefits, removing trays also changes personal interactions in the Caf. If

8. trays are removed, then the amount of food that one student is able to carry is limited to one
plate. This trend appears often when the Stav Hall runs out of clean trays during the dinner
rush. When a student only carries one plate of food and one or two beverages, they must
make additional trips to get refills, more foods, etc. Students are then forced to go back into a
common area to get something they need. This creates more personal interactions in the food
serving area of the Stav and the small conversations that occur during these meetings
enhance creativity and senses of community. Steve Jobs created a similar architecture with
the Apple headquarters. At first he moved all mailboxes to one area. Then he moved all
bathrooms to one area in the center of the building, which forced people to go to a common
area. Steve Jobs did this to increase the amount of interactions employees had, which would
lead to greater innovation. Eliminating trays though does have its drawbacks. It could add
costs to Bon Appeit’s services since eliminating trays would mean more food waste gets on the
tables. Costs of hiring additional cleaning persons in the caf would be offset by the less water
used to clean the trays.
Tables in Stav Hall have been reorganized for different events. During this year, the tables
were rearranged in a horizontal fashion creating four longs tables. This layout forced students
to sit next to groups they didn’t know. If this organization was put in the caf, students would
interact more with groups they don’t know or maybe overhear an idea.
Professors do not dine in Stav Hall enough. By increasing their presence in Stav, you increase
interaction with students. The increased interactions would have the benefit of greater access
to professors and a new dynamic to the student-professor relationship at St. Olaf.

9. V. Student Representation on CILA
While the Center for Innovation in the Liberal Arts is an extraordinary resource for faculty, it
can be adjusted to maximize efficiency. Last summer, the IT department hosted the Ipad
Learning Community. This community was designed to introduce faculty to the uses of Ipad
and other technologies for use in the classroom. Serving on the Learning Community were
two student assistants, myself being one of them. As assistants we guided faculty through the
process of setting up their Ipad but also in brainstorming ideas in how to you Ipads and other
technologies in the classroom. The most asked question during the community was, “how
would you use this in the classroom.” Students, being both technology ambassadors and the
recipients of the liberal arts education, should have fair input in the innovation process.
Having a students’ perspectives in CILA would be invaluable. Representation could consist of
one to two student workers working alongside the CILA staff or even positions within the
Piper Center.