• (The) Korean Journal of Educational Psychology
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.767-794
• /
• 2017

Creativity is a social byproduct formed in a specific sociocultural context. Although creativity differs according to the level of culture ranging from supranational, national, professional to organizational levels, research studies documented in literature have mainly dealt with creativity in the (super)national level. For example, differences in personal creativity in the East and the West led by collectivism and individualism, respectively have been dominating in the studies about cultural differences in creativity. Consequently, the domain specificity of creativity and the effects of a more micro level of culture, such as domains, occupations, and organizations, on creative outcomes have been dismissed. Understanding the characteristics of domains, and sociocultural and environmental factors leading to creative products is worth investigating considering that the conception of creativity today highly relies on the nature of domains valued in a certain sociocultural environment. This study reviewed a wide range of literature regarding creativity and sociocultural and environmental factors in order to explore how culture and/or cultural factors inspired creative thinking and generating ideas for creative performance and products. Cultural factors were identified either as a value or a practice (custom) and examined on the supernational, national, professional, and organizational levels. For supernational and national cultures, issues on individualism, collectivism, artistic social atmosphere, and multi-cultural experiences were discussed, while the professional and organizational cultures delved topics on the domain of architecture in which both originality and functionality are greatly valued for creativity. The authors concluded that the impact of culture on creative thinking and idea generation varied according to the levels of culture although issues on multifactorial aspects of culture, differences between personal and collective creativity, and the identification of culture either as a value or a practice (custom) should be discussed further for future studies.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.113-119
• /
• 1999

Purpose : To evaluate possible acute toxicity and early response of concurrent radiation therapy and low dose daily cisplatin as a radiosensitizer in patients with locally advanced uterine cervical carcinomas. Materials and Method : From December 1996 to January 1999, 38 previously untreated Patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix (from stage IIB to stage IIIB) were treated at Inha University Hospital. All patients underwent standard pretreatment staging Procedures after the initial evaluation by gynecologists and radiation oncologists. Sixteen Patients with huge cervical mass (>4 cm) were submitted to the group treated with concurrent radiation therapy and low dose daily cisplatin while the remainder was treated with radiation therapy alone. Radiation therapy consisted of 4500 cGy external beam irradiation to whole pelvis (midline block after 3000 cGy), 900$\~$1000 cGy boost to involved parametrium, and high dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (a total dose of 3000$\~$3500 cGy/500 cGy per fraction to point A, twice per week). In the group treated with low dose cisplatin concurrently, 10 mg of daily intravenous cisplatin was given from the 1st day of radiation therapy to the 20th day of radiation therapy. Acute toxicity was measured according to expanded common toxicity criteria of the NCI (C) Clinical Trials. Early response data were analyzed at minimum 4 weeks' follow-up after completion of the treatment protocol. Results: Hematolgic toxici쇼 was more prominent in patients treated with radiation therapy and cisplatin. Six of 16 patients (37.5$\~$) treated with radiation therapy and cisplatin and one of 22 patients (4.5$\~$) treated with radiation therapy alone experienced grade 3 leukopenia. In Fisher's exact test, there was statistically significant difference between two groups regarding leukopenia (P=0.030). There was no apparent difference in the frequency of gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity between two groups (P=0.066). Three of 16 patients (18.7$\~$) treated with radiation therapy and cisplatin and two of 22 patients (9.1$\~$) treated with radiation therapy alone experienced more than 5 kg weight loss during the treatment. There was no statistically significant difference on weight loss between two groups (P=0.63). Two patients on each group were not evaluable for the early response because of incomplete treatment. The complete response rate at four weeks' follow-up was 80$\~$(16/20) for the radiation therapy alone group and 78$\~$ (11/14) for the radiation therapy and cisplatin group. There was no statistically significant difference in early response between two treatment groups (P=0.126). Conclusion : This study led to the conclusion that the hematologic toxicity from the treatment with concurrent radiation therapy and low dose daily cisplatin seems to be more prominent than that from the treatment of radiation therapy alone. There was no grade 4 hematologic toxicity or mortality in both groups. The hematologic toxicity in both treatment groups seems to be well managable modically. Since the risk factors were not balanced between two treatment groups, the direct comparison of early response of both groups was not possible. However, preliminary results regarding early response for patients with bulky cervical tumor mass treated with radiation therapy and low dose daily cisplatin was encouraging. Longer follow-up is necessary to evaluate the survival data. A phase III study is needed to evaluate the efficacy of concurrent daily low dose cisplatin with radiation therapy in bulky cervical cancer.