The trickster methodology: Describing the creative process of fiction writers

References

1. Abrahams, R. (1968), ‘Trickster, the outrageous hero’, in T. Coffin (ed.), Our Living Traditions: An Introduction to American Folklore, New York: Basic Books, pp. 170–78.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Ahmed, S. (2000), Strange Encounters: Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality, London: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Ahmed, S. (2014), Willful Subjects, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Amabile, T. (1996), Creativity in Context, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bacon, E. (2017), ‘Creative research: Mixing methods in practice-led research to explore a model of stories-within-a-story to build a novel’, New Writing, 14:2, pp. 235–56, https://doi.org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/10.1080/14790726.2016.1270969.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Barrett, E. (2010), ‘Introduction’, in E. Barrett and B. Bolt (eds), Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry, London: Tauris & Co, pp. 1–24.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bakhtin, M. (1984), Rabelais and His World (trans. H. Iswolsky), Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Beghetto, R. and Kaufman, J. (2007), ‘Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity’, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1:2, pp. 73–79, https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Brown, T. (2008), ‘Design thinking’, Harvard Business Review, June, https://readings.design/PDF/Tim%20Brown,%20Design%20Thinking.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2021.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Butler, O. (2005), Blood Child, New York: Seven Stone Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Candy, L. (2006), Practice Based Research: A Guide, Creativity and Cognitive Studios Report, Sydney: University of Technology, https://www.creativityandcognition.com/resources/PBR%20Guide-1.1-2006.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Chabon, M. (1998), ‘Foreword’, in L. Hyde (ed.), Trickster Makes This World: Mischief, Myth, and Art, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Cosentino, D. (1987), ‘Who is that fellow in the many-colored cap? Transformations of Eshu in old and new world mythologies’, The Journal of American Folklore, 100:397, pp. 261–75, https://doi.org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/10.2307/540323.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Dean, R. and Smith, H. (2009), Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1998), A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, Lexington, KY: DC Heath & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Doueihi, A. (1993), ‘Inhabiting the space between discourse and story in trickster narratives’, in W. Hynes and W. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pp. 193–201.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Dreyfus, H. and Dreyfus, S. (1986), Mind over Machine, New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Freiman, M. (2001), ‘Crossing the boundaries of the discipline: a post-colonial approach to teaching creative writing in the university’, Text Journal, 5:2, n.pag., http://www.textjournal.com.au/oct01/freiman.htm. Accessed 1 July 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Gildersleeve, J. and Batorowicz, B. (2017), ‘“He is telling us fairy tales”: Parental anxiety and wartime childhood in Life is Beautiful, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas and Fairy Tales from Auschwitz’, Holocaust Studies, 24:1, pp. 26–44, https://doi-org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/10.1080/17504902.2017.1340074.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Glăveanu, V. (2014), Thinking through Creativity and Culture: Towards an Integrated Model, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Glăveanu, V. and Tanggaard, L. (2016), ‘Mess’, in V. Glăveanu, L. Tanggaard and C. Wegener (eds), Creativity: A New Vocabulary, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 78–86.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Glăveanu, V., Tanggaard, L. and Wegener, C. (2016), ‘Foreword: The importance of being a vocabulary’, in V. Glăveanu, L. Tanggaard and C. Wegener (eds), Creativity: A New Vocabulary, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. ix–x.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Guenther, M. (2002), ‘The bushman trickster: Protagonist, divinity, and agent of creativity’, Marvels & Tales, 16:1, pp. 13–25, https://muse-jhu-edu.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/article/20696. Accessed 2 April 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Guilford, J. (1956), ‘The structure of intellect’, Psychological Bulletin, 53:4, pp. 267–93, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040755.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Harper, G. (2011), ‘Making connections: Creative writing in the 21st century’, New Writing, 8:3, pp. 203–05, https://doi.org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/10.1080/14790726.2011.615402.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Haseman, B. (2007), ‘Tightrope writing: Creative writing programs in the RQF environment’, TEXT Journal, 11:1, n.pag., https://www.textjournal.com.au/april07/haseman.htm. Accessed 7 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Hayes, J. and Flower, L. (1980), ‘Identifying the organization of writing processes’, in L. Gregg and E. Steinberg (eds), Cognitive Processes in Writing, New York: Erlbaum, pp. 365–87.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Hayles, K. (1991), ‘Introduction: Complex dynamics in literature and science’, in K. Hayles (ed.), Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Hyde, L. (1998), Trickster Makes This World: Mischief, Myth, and Art, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hynes, W. (1993a), ‘Inconclusive conclusions: Tricksters, metaplayers, and revealers’, in W. Hynes and W. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pp. 202–17.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Hynes, W. (1993b), ‘Mapping the characteristics of mythic tricksters: A heuristic guide’, in W. Hynes and W. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pp. 33–45.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Hynes, W. and Doty, W. (1993a), ‘Historical overview of theoretical issues: The problem of the trickster’, in W. Hynes and W. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pp. 13–32.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Hynes, W. and Doty, W. (1993b), ‘Introducing the fascinating and perplexing trickster figure’, in W. Hynes and W. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pp. 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Hynes, W. and Steele, T. (1993), ‘Saint Peter: Apostle transfigured into trickster’, in W. Hynes and W. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pp. 159–73.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Joas, H. and Knôbl, W. (2009), Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Kerényi, K. (1951), The Gods of the Greeks, New York: Thames and Hudson.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Krauth, N. and Nash, P. (2018), ‘Creative work as scholarly work’, New Writing, 16:3, pp. 281–302, https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2018.1545791.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Kroll, J. (2009), ‘The supervisor as practice-led coach and trainer: Getting creative writing doctoral candidates across the finish line’, Text Journal, Special Issue: ‘Supervising Creative Arts Research Higher Degree Towards Best Practice’, 6, pp. 1–20, http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue6/Kroll.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Landay, L. (1998), Madcaps, Screwballs, and Con Women: The Female Tricksters in American Culture, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Lyotard, J. (1984), The Postmodern Condition, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
42. MacKinnon, D. (1978), In Search of Human Effectiveness: Identifying and Developing Creativity, New York: Creative Education Foundation.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Mannay, D. (2010), ‘Making the familiar strange: Can visual research methods render the familiar setting more perceptible?’, Qualitative Research, 10:1, pp. 91–111, https://doi-org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/10.1177/1468794109348684.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Marais, S. (2018), ‘Considering the alternative: Bakhtin’s carnivalesque and convergence of worlds of animals and humans in Yann Martel’s Life of Pi’, Literator, 39:1, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.4102/lit.v39i1.1460.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Mills, M. (2001), ‘The gender of the trick: Female tricksters and male narrators’, Asian Folklore Studies, 60:2, pp. 237–58, https://doi.org/10.2307/1179056.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Miura, S. (1982), The Trickster Archetype: His Function in Contemporary Fiction, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
47. O’Connor, F. (1980), The Habit of Being: Letters of Flannery O’Connor, New York: Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Oxford English Dictionary (2022), ‘Play’, Oxford English Dictionary, n.d., https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=play. Accessed 20 December 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Pelton, R. (1993), ‘West African tricksters: Web of purpose, dance of delight’, in W. Hynes and W. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Perkins, D. (1981), The Mind’s Best Work, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Picasso, P. (1923), ‘Picasso speaks: A statement by the artist’, in F. Watson (ed.), The Arts: An Illustrated Monthly Magazine Covering All Phases of Ancient and Modern Art, 3:1, pp. 315–29, New York: The Arts Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Plucker, J. and Beghetto, A. (2004), ‘Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter’, in R. Sternberg, E. Grigorenko and J. Singer (eds), Creativity: From Potential to Realization, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 153–67.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Radin, P. (1956), The Trickster: A Study in American Indian Mythology, New York: Philosophical Library.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Richardson, L. (2005), ‘Writing as a method of inquiry’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 959–78.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Rowell, C. and Butler, O. (1997), ‘An Interview with Octavia E. Butler’, Callaloo, 20:1, pp. 47–66, https://doi.org/10.1353/cal.1997.0003.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Runco, M. (2014), Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice, Centro Rio de Janeiro, CA: Elsevier Science and Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Russ, J. (1983), How to Suppress Women’s Writing, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Ryan, A. (2005), ‘Connecting two research strategies: A hybrid model’, Text Journal, 9:1, n.pag., http://www.textjournal.com.au/april05/ryan.htm. Accessed 5 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Scheub, H. (2012), Trickster and Zero: Two Characters in the Oral and Written Traditions of the World, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Simonton, D. (2013), ‘Teaching creativity: Current findings, trends, and controversies in the psychology of creativity’, Teaching of Psychology, 39:3, n.pag., https://doi-org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/10.1177/0098628312450444.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Sternberg, R. (1999), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Sulway, N. (2019), ‘Pursuit, willfulness, and the strangeness of strangers’, Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 30:1, pp. 42–51.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Tanggaard, L. and Juelsbo, T. (2016), ‘Mess’, in V. Glăveanu, L. Tanggaard and C. Wegener (eds), Creativity: A New Vocabulary, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 78–86.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Thornton, T. and Thornton, P. (2015), ‘The mutable, the mythical and the managerial: Raven narratives and the Anthropocene’, Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 6:1, pp. 66–86, https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2015.060105.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Turnbull, D. (2000), Masons, Tricksters and Cartographers: Comparative Studies in the Sociology of Scientific and Indigenous Knowledge, London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Wallas, G. (1926), The Art of Thought, London: Solis Press.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Warner, M. (1998), No Go the Bogeyman: Scaring, Lulling, and Making Mock, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Webb, J. (2004), ‘Multiple and contradictory interpellations: Or, how to juggle cats’, Text Journal, 8:1, n.pag, http://www.textjournal.com.au/april04/webb.htm. Accessed 1 July 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Weisberg, R. (1993), Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius, New York: WH Freeman.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Wertheirner, M. (1959), Productive Thinking, New York: Harper & Row.
    [Google Scholar]
71. Williams, M. (2012), ‘Introduction’, in B. Batorowicz (ed.), Tales within Historical Spaces: Beata Batorwicz, Brisbane: QUT Art Museum, pp. 15–16.
    [Google Scholar]
72. Windling, T. (2021), ‘Standing on the shoulders of giants’, Myth and Moor, 13 April, https://www.terriwindling.com/blog/2021/04/on-influence.html. Accessed 14 April 2021.
    [Google Scholar]